Integration and Testing the Integration
March 14, 2011
The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released a deep report into last year's issue with "unintended acceleration" on certain Toyota cars. They actually employed a team from NASA who analyzed the throttle control software using a wide range of cutting-edge tools. Reading their report gives a good idea for how embedded control software is developed, and the challenges inherent in validating it.
The conclusion is that the software is not a likely cause of the problems. The real meat of the report (and its appendixes) is just how this conclusions is reached, and what it says about the tools that could be applied to develop embedded software with greater confidence about its correctness.
Related Semiconductor IP
- AES GCM IP Core
- High Speed Ethernet Quad 10G to 100G PCS
- High Speed Ethernet Gen-2 Quad 100G PCS IP
- High Speed Ethernet 4/2/1-Lane 100G PCS
- High Speed Ethernet 2/4/8-Lane 200G/400G PCS
Related Blogs
- I3C IP: Enabling Efficient Communication and Sensor Integration
- Navigating Integration Challenges for the RISC-V Ecosystem with Networks-on-Chips (NoCs)
- IP Integration : What is the difference between stitching and weaving?
- Heard at DAC: is IP integration the real high-level design?
Latest Blogs
- Why Choose Hard IP for Embedded FPGA in Aerospace and Defense Applications
- Migrating the CPU IP Development from MIPS to RISC-V Instruction Set Architecture
- Quintauris: Accelerating RISC-V Innovation for next-gen Hardware
- Say Goodbye to Limits and Hello to Freedom of Scalability in the MIPS P8700
- Why is Hard IP a Better Solution for Embedded FPGA (eFPGA) Technology?