I got a comment referring to a blog from a guy working with AUTOSAR implementation at GM.
He got some questions in his blog about AUTOSAR. I don't believe I have any definitive answers, but here are some quick thoughts...
..........is the architecture migration expensive ?
This was asked from a concern that the necessary tool support for developing AUTOSAR systems would incur expensive licenings costs compared to native development. I don't think the tool costs would be any higher compared to present tools (i.e. UML code generation tools or Simulink/dSpace). The big cost in migration to AUTOSAR would be the necessary change in OEM and TIER1 development processes. The cost of an experienced programmer is wastly greater than the cost of a S/W tool.
..........is AUTOSAR ISO compliant ?
Don't know.
..........does AUTOSAR emphasize on all key areas of the Embedded system ?
No, there are several proprietary concepts used by Volvo Cars when developing embedded systems that are not within the scope of AUTOSAR. I imagine it is the same for other OEMs as well.
.........how is the current AUTOSAR classified ?
This question I don't understand...
.........scope of AUTOSAR ?
At least the german OEMs and suppliers are very serious about AUTOSAR (e.g. BMW, Bosch and Vector). They have put hundreds of man-years into developing the standard and adapting their products.
.........is AUTOSAR going to provide a "AUTOSAR Compliant Hardware System" blueprint for automotive electronic hardware manufacturing companies ?
Not to my knowledge. I think this is left to the various suppliers to solve. "Cooperate on standards. Compete on implementation". I can imagine a scenarion where hardware manufacturers like freescale would deliver an "AUTOSAR-optimised" CPU with associated H/W-abstraction layer (part of AUTOSAR BSW).
|
|
---|
Monday, March 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment