0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm working on a project which must be used in an automotive application and act as a node into the multiplex CAN-BUS network. There are number of I/O that must be actuated and some of them had a level of safety critical attribute. I developed my code using the STM32 HAL generic driver. And because the overall application and task are simple and latency is in lower priority so I decided not to deal with the register it self and using HAL driver instead, as the matter of speed and optimization of the code.

My question is that although the software seem to be working in prototype device, is it reliable to use HAL driver for safety critical application like automotive?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't even think the STM32 is certified for automotive. You need the SPC5 for that. \$\endgroup\$ – Jeroen3 Mar 13 at 14:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ I Do really want's To look at the problem As the Point Of software And HAL Driver,you know I want to know the Overall performance of This Abstraction Layer API And it's Behavior , And how much you can trust the Output over The Time.? \$\endgroup\$ – DR.soai Mar 13 at 15:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ Generally, those kinds of certifications are part of your "competitive edge". It's very unusual to find free (gratis) software that's qualified for safety applications. \$\endgroup\$ – pgvoorhees Mar 13 at 15:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to EE.SE! Please Stop capitalizing Random words. It Makes It very difficult To read your Text. \$\endgroup\$ – winny Mar 13 at 15:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ His random capital letters is a code! \$\endgroup\$ – Tyler Mar 13 at 19:03
1
\$\begingroup\$

ST uC was tested to be compliant to ISO 16845 CAN conformance but ST have a disclaimer.

https://www.st.com/content/ccc/resource/technical/document/application_note/6d/41/b5/24/c1/4d/47/f5/CD00004125.pdf/files/CD00004125.pdf/jcr:content/translations/en.CD00004125.pdf

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

For example, the text below was copied from "DocID025838 Rev 3" document - April 2014.

ST PRODUCTS ARE NOT DESIGNED OR AUTHORIZED FOR USE IN: (A) SAFETY CRITICAL APPLICATIONS SUCH AS LIFESUPPORTING, ACTIVE IMPLANTED DEVICES OR SYSTEMS WITH PRODUCT FUNCTIONAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS; (B)AERONAUTIC APPLICATIONS; (C) AUTOMOTIVE APPLICATIONS OR ENVIRONMENTS, AND/OR (D) AEROSPACE APPLICATIONSOR ENVIRONMENTS. WHERE ST PRODUCTS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR SUCH USE, THE PURCHASER SHALL USE PRODUCTS ATPURCHASER’S SOLE RISK, EVEN IF ST HAS BEEN INFORMED IN WRITING OF SUCH USAGE, UNLESS A PRODUCT ISEXPRESSLY DESIGNATED BY ST AS BEING INTENDED FOR “AUTOMOTIVE, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OR MEDICAL” INDUSTRYDOMAINS ACCORDING TO ST PRODUCT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS. PRODUCTS FORMALLY ESCC, QML OR JAN QUALIFIED AREDEEMED SUITABLE FOR USE IN AEROSPACE BY THE CORRESPONDING GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That is very standard for semiconductor vendors. If you want automotive, use an automotive specified part (You may have to any way to get the temperature range required). On the software side, what SIL level are your 'safety critical requirements' and can you finesse things in the hardware to lower level of the safety case needed for the software? I would note that for something trivial like GPIO pins it is usually easier to do the register level thing (and do all the reviews and tests required) then it is to certify a massive pile like the HAL as SIL 3 or 4 if it was not designed that way. \$\endgroup\$ – Dan Mills Mar 13 at 15:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.