Does CubeMX at its current status (both HAL and LL) have any level of the DO-178 compliance? Thanks in advance... ED

[e d]

..

[Tesla DeLorean]

There is clearly no chance of that.

My experience is that people working under those constrains write their own libraries from scratch and validate them six ways to sunday.

ST's license specifically disclaims any responsibility/liability, basically you use it, you own it. And the parts aren't typically for use in system where life/safety are at risk.

You should discuss with the sales/support engineers for your commercial account.

[e d]

I kinda guessed that was the case. Couldn't google for the definitive answer so I posted it here. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

[Tesla DeLorean]

I would suggest you run your static analysis tools against the libraries, and have your more senior engineers code walk it and the examples, and output from CubeMX, and see if it is something they could sign off on.

[e d]

You are right on. Those are the topics we've been discussing. We were wondering if any others in the industry had looked into this so we could potentially collaborate. If not we will write everything from scratch no problem.

[Houda GHABRI]

Hi @e d​ ,

The code generate by CubeMX specifies that it is provided "AS IS" so it doesn't have any level of the DO-178 compliance .

Best regards,

Houda

[David Littell]

Under no conditions would you ever want to fly any HAL code. Treat it all as examples only.

[e d]

@Houda GHABRI​ We are only required level D of the DO-178 so it is not very stringent. We are investigating the SPL/Cube LL library and it looks promising. I think using CubeMx with LL ONLY code we can internally sign off on it as Clive mentioned.

The problem is when I was experimenting with a DISCOVERY board (L100) using only LL and no HAL and I was missing some critical LL equivalent driver files (compared to HAL or SPL drivers, e.g. flash driver). Is it possible to get the full set of drivers as in SPL using CubeMx LL only?

[djlf]

HI @e d 

I am wondering if you ever managed to complete this project?

I would love to get some advice/pitfalls of aiming for DO-178 compliance.

I am currently working on a project where the plan is also to attain DO-178 compliance. Your post has already helped me to see that this would require custom driver development instead of using the HAL/LL drivers.

In addition to this, did you take a bare metal approach for the project? 

We are thinking of using CMSIS-RTOS2, but I am also unsure about the added complexity of the RTOS and if this will make DO-178 difficult. So I am wondering if the bare metal approach is better?

 

Kind regards,