4 ms·

Ideally yes because if the microcontrollers can be replaced by a central macro-controller computer you can then update it all more easily. You make the whole th

by t43562 2y ago

Ideally yes because if the microcontrollers can be replaced by a central macro-controller computer you can then update it all more easily. You make the whole thing more software defined.

graemep 2y ago
Which is the problem. A lot of separate micro controllers will probably never need an update. We have now had microcontrollers in cars for decades, and they almost all worked fine without updates. Its only recently, with the more software defined systems, that we have needed updates.
- graemep 2y ago
  To add, I recall a fair proportion of ARM's sales (as per annual report) were for automotive use, so we a lot of this were processors that compared well to what you would have run a desktop on a decade earlier so reasonably sophisticated systems potentially, just kept simple by being single purpose.
- t43562 2y ago
  I'm not in a position to know but from reading around a lot I think the VW ID3/4 ended up having a nightmare update scenario because early hardware was buggy. I know from working at a phone company that hardware absolutely has bugs and it's only reliable as long as you're changing very little. If you start having a system where you're trying to optimise everything e.g. to save power when not in use and allow lots of customer choices in how things work then you're going to choose new microcontroller hardware and software and it will have bugs that have not been ironed out over the years. The stories I read about ID3 updates going wrong were about certain controllers not successfully acknowledging their firmware updates. So I can see a strong temptation to make it all vertical - to have control over everything so you can ensure it works before you order 200k of them. Instead of having 60 suppliers all providing their interpretation of your bus protocol, each with unique bugs you take the whole thing into a single design. I can also see it being far more conducive to have a smaller number of bigger and more homogeneous microcontrollers each of which might not be perfect for every job but since they're all the same you only have to provide 1 software update solution and you can test the shit out of it.
Glawen 2y ago
And you will then multiply the amount of wiring needed because everything departs from the main computer. It's much easier to run a communication wire and a 12V wire, and have a microcontroller control the sensor/motor
ZaoLahma 2y ago
And when that macro controller computer eventually (inevitably?) dies, it will hurt the wallet immensely.

by t43562 2y ago

Ideally yes because if the microcontrollers can be replaced by a central macro-controller computer you can then update it all more easily. You make the whole thing more software defined.

graemep 2y ago

Which is the problem. A lot of separate micro controllers will probably never need an update. We have now had microcontrollers in cars for decades, and they almost all worked fine without updates. Its only recently, with the more software defined systems, that we have needed updates.

graemep 2y ago
To add, I recall a fair proportion of ARM's sales (as per annual report) were for automotive use, so we a lot of this were processors that compared well to what you would have run a desktop on a decade earlier so reasonably sophisticated systems potentially, just kept simple by being single purpose.
t43562 2y ago
I'm not in a position to know but from reading around a lot I think the VW ID3/4 ended up having a nightmare update scenario because early hardware was buggy. I know from working at a phone company that hardware absolutely has bugs and it's only reliable as long as you're changing very little. If you start having a system where you're trying to optimise everything e.g. to save power when not in use and allow lots of customer choices in how things work then you're going to choose new microcontroller hardware and software and it will have bugs that have not been ironed out over the years. The stories I read about ID3 updates going wrong were about certain controllers not successfully acknowledging their firmware updates. So I can see a strong temptation to make it all vertical - to have control over everything so you can ensure it works before you order 200k of them. Instead of having 60 suppliers all providing their interpretation of your bus protocol, each with unique bugs you take the whole thing into a single design. I can also see it being far more conducive to have a smaller number of bigger and more homogeneous microcontrollers each of which might not be perfect for every job but since they're all the same you only have to provide 1 software update solution and you can test the shit out of it.

Glawen 2y ago

And you will then multiply the amount of wiring needed because everything departs from the main computer. It's much easier to run a communication wire and a 12V wire, and have a microcontroller control the sensor/motor

ZaoLahma 2y ago

And when that macro controller computer eventually (inevitably?) dies, it will hurt the wallet immensely.