Do IP cores DO-254?
The ipPROCESS is a process that supports the design of IP-cores (ASIC and FPGA) according to the DO-254 standard, with an optimized design time….A RTCA-DO-254 Compliant Development Process for Supporting the Design of High-Quality Hard IP Cores.
| Data | Count |
|---|---|
| Silicon area | ~ 14 mm² |
DO-254 certifiable?
The DO-254 standard gives you design assurance and guidance from conception through initial certification, as well as through post-certification product improvements. Our focus is on DO-254 levels A, B, C, and D compliance.
DO-254 dal e?
Simply stated, DO-254 is a requirements-driven process-oriented safety standard used on commercial electronics that go into aircraft. (Conceptually speaking, this standard applies to all electronics in anything that flies or could crash and pose a hazard to the public.)
What is COTS IP?
In regulation and certification realms, IP is referred to as COTS IP. COTS, or “commercial off the shelf,” is added presumably to emphasize that the IP is developed outside of the scope or control of the company developing the avionics design, which is subject to DO-254 compliance.
Do 254 tools qualify?
What is DO-254 Tool Qualification? Hardware development requires many tools including design tools, implementation generation tools, synthesis, simulation, libraries, test tools, and structural coverage tools. DO-254 tool qualification pertains to development and testing tools.
DO-254 tools qualify?
DO-254 Do 178C?
The basis for DO-254 was DO-178 itself, ensuring similarity between certification of software and hardware in terms of processes and objectives to be satisfied. DO-178 (software) and DO-254 (hardware) presume that software and hardware must operate in harmonic unison, each with proven reliability.
Can you DO-254 avionics?
RTCA/DO-254 was first recognized in 2005 as the universal primary standard to ensure safety in electronic-airborne systems. It comprises of five levels of compliance, termed as Design Assurance Levels (DAL).
What is COTS and gots?
A COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) product is one that is used “as-is.” COTS products are designed to be easily installed and to interoperate with existing system components. A GOTS (government off-the-shelf) product is typically developed by the technical staff of the government agency for which it is created.
What is the difference between commercial and COTS?
Commercial Available Off-the-Shelf Items A product does not have to be COTS to meet the commercial item definition. COTS items are a subset of commercial items. The commercial item definition is much broader and embraces products other than those that are presently available off the shelf.
What is tool qualification?
Tool qualification is a process that allows us to demonstrate that a tool can be used as part of the realization of a software application with a determined safety goal.
Do you need soft IP to do DO-254?
In essence this means the IP has to be developed to be DO-254 compliant or reverse-engineered to become so. On the surface, this sounds simple enough. An avionics engineer must buy compliant soft IP or get the source and reverse engineer it with an appropriate DO-254 process.
What are the issues With DO-254 in FPGAs?
The DO-254 compliance challenges arise primarily from the assumed lack of development assurance during the IP design process. These concerns with COTS IP are first mentioned in Order 8110.105 (2008), an FAA policy document that shapes how DO-254 is applied to FPGAs.
Are there any IP vendors that are DO-254 compliant?
First, very few commercial IP vendors have developed DO-254 compliant IP. The investment is too high (due to the expertise and process required) and the return too low (due to the small size of the avionics market).
How does COTS relate to DO-254 compliance?
COTS, or “commercial off the shelf,” is added presumably to emphasize that the IP is developed outside of the scope or control of the company developing the avionics design, which is subject to DO-254 compliance. The DO-254 compliance challenges arise primarily from the assumed lack of development assurance during the IP design process.