SDAA554 November   2026 AM3351 , AM3352 , AM3354 , AM3356 , AM3357 , AM3358 , AM3359 , AM623 , AM625 , AM62A3 , AM62A7 , AM62L , AM62P , AM67 , AM67A

 

  1.   1
  2.   Abstract
  3.   Trademarks
  4. 1Introduction
  5. 2Understanding the Hardware Landscape and UI Implications
    1. 2.1 Hardware Platform Categories: The Baseline
    2. 2.2 Featured Platform Specifications & Architecture Context
      1. 2.2.1 Texas Instruments AM335 Platform
      2. 2.2.2 Texas Instruments AM62L Platform
      3. 2.2.3 Texas Instruments AM62A Platform
      4. 2.2.4 Texas Instruments AM62 Platform
      5. 2.2.5 Texas Instruments AM62P and AM67 Platforms
      6. 2.2.6 Texas Instruments AM67A Platform
  6. 3Technology Deep Dive: The Frameworks
    1. 3.1 Qt: Cross-Platform Application Framework
      1. 3.1.1 Technology Architecture
      2. 3.1.2 Platform Suitability & Real-World Scaling
      3. 3.1.3 The Business Case: Advantages and Challenges
    2. 3.2 Slint: The Modern Lightweight Alternative
      1. 3.2.1 Technology Architecture
      2. 3.2.2 Platform Suitability and Real-World Scaling
      3. 3.2.3 The Business Case: Advantages and Challenges
    3. 3.3 LVGL: The Microcontroller Specialist
      1. 3.3.1 Technology Architecture
      2. 3.3.2 Platform Suitability and Real-World Scaling
      3. 3.3.3 The Business Case: Advantages and Challenges
    4. 3.4 Flutter: The Mobile-First Approach
      1. 3.4.1 Technology Architecture
      2. 3.4.2 Platform Suitability and Real-World Scaling
      3. 3.4.3 The Business Case: Advantages and Challenges
    5. 3.5 Other Notable Frameworks
  7. 4The KDAB Decision Framework and Implementation Best Practices
    1. 4.1 Decision Criteria Beyond the Silicon
      1. 4.1.1 Licensing and Business Model
      2. 4.1.2 Team Expertise and Development Velocity
      3. 4.1.3 Long-Term Maintenance & Certification
    2. 4.2 Implementation Best Practices: Optimizing Performance
      1. 4.2.1 Memory and Graphics Management
      2. 4.2.2 Power Efficiency
    3. 4.3 Start-Up Time Considerations (The "Cold Boot" Problem)
    4. 4.4 Power Efficiency (Battery-Powered Devices)
    5. 4.5 Future Trends and Considerations
  8. 5Summary: TI and KDAB's Perspective
    1. 5.1 About the KDAB Group
    2. 5.2 About the Texas Instruments Sitara MPU Group
  9. 6References

3.1.3 The Business Case: Advantages and Challenges

  • Strengths: Mature ecosystem; Qt Creator and Qt Design Studio (with a Figma bridge); single-codebase deployment across Linux, RTOS, Windows, iOS, and Android; certification support for IEC 62304 and ISO 26262 via the Qt Safe Renderer (a separate product; these certifications do not cover the full Qt framework); Squish test automation.
  • Challenges: Large footprint versus minimal frameworks; learning curve around CMake/qmake; licensing complexity for closed-source products or static linking scenarios. Commercial Qt licensing can be a material total-cost-of-ownership consideration depending on deployment model, product volume, support needs, static-linking approach and additional Qt products. Teams must obtain current commercial terms and evaluate licensing alongside engineering and BOM cost.
Note: KDAB's Perspective: Licensing vs Development Velocity

Commercial Qt licensing is a direct and ongoing cost. The real comparison is between tool ecosystems; Qt Creator and Design Studio, Slint's live-preview tooling, and Flutter's hot reload each accelerate different workflows. Teams must evaluate tool fit against their product rather than assuming any one framework is uniquely productive.