> don’t have anything like the verification and documentation processes that are mandated by DO-178

ISO 26262? Not sure how the enforcement looks, but automotive is pretty serious about ISO 26262.

Still, the infotainment is most likely QM so it wouldn't apply in this specific situation.

ISO 26262 does have serious lifecycle standards but again it’s a voluntary industry standard that has no government oversight or regulatory authority. Oversight is typically largely internal and is strongest in the auto parts/components market. It’s largely toothless to automakers/integrators and again the likes of Tesla simply don’t use it and have no obligation to.

The infotainment system itself may be QM but there has to be assurance that it is in fact separated from higher safety level system.

	▲	RealityVoid 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> it’s a voluntary industry standard that has no government oversight or regulatory authority. Yes, hence why I said I'm not sure about enforcement mechanisms how they stack up against the aviation standard. Still, in my limited experience, projects that are ASIL x take the thing pretty seriously and they do get certifications from external bodies. Actually, I am supporting an SEooC external certification right now. > The infotainment system itself may be QM but there has to be assurance that it is in fact separated from higher safety level system. The separation most likely happens _outside_ the infotainment itself, through a gateway.