OpenGMSL: Can It Succeed Against Its Own Legacy?

Disrupting Your Own Technology

In the automotive industry, few technologies achieve the kind of dominance that Maxim’s GMSL3/2 has enjoyed. With over 1.1 billion links shipped, it has become the de facto SerDes solution for high-speed automotive data transmission. 

Now, ADI—the very company behind GMSL—is pitching OpenGMSL, an open standard that aims to break away from the proprietary constraints of its own legacy.

Why would a company do that? 

The reasons could range from industry pressure for openness, to preempting competitor-driven disruption, or simply a shift in business model from proprietary hardware revenue to licensing and ecosystem control.

This move has both advantages and risks. While OpenGMSL could foster a more open and scalable automotive ecosystem, it also faces technical, business, and adoption challenges that could lead to failure. For OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers considering its adoption, it’s critical to understand these challenges and evaluate whether OpenGMSL is truly a viable alternative or just an industry experiment.

The Challenges Facing OpenGMSL

Despite the vision behind OpenGMSL, several factors could hinder its success.

Industry Resistance & Standardization Uncertainty

Deep Market Penetration of GMSL3/2

Automotive OEMs rely on proven, validated solutions—and GMSL3/2 has already passed stringent EMC requirements, robustness tests, and high-speed link validations. Convincing automakers to replace an existing, reliable standard is a major challenge.

Fragmentation in IEEE 802.3dm

The IEEE 802.3dm Task Force is debating between ACT (Automotive Connectivity Technology) and TDD (Time-Division Duplexing). Without industry convergence, OpenGMSL could struggle to align with a dominant standard, leading to hesitancy in adoption.

Technical & Performance Limitations

Power Spectral Density (PSD) & EMC Compliance

OpenGMSL must optimize PSD levels to meet automotive EMC standards. Any failure to achieve this could mean instability, interference, or outright rejection by automakers.

Encoding & Modulation Complexity

GMSL3 uses 64B/65B encoding and PAM4 modulation, providing efficient data transmission and resilience. If OpenGMSL cannot match or exceed this reliability, it won’t be an attractive alternative.

Reverse Link Performance

Automotive applications increasingly demand high-speed upstream links—a key advantage of GMSL3/2. If OpenGMSL struggles with low-speed upstream data rates, it will limit real-world applications.

Business Model & Vendor Lock-in Risks

Single-Vendor Dependency

If OpenGMSL remains controlled by only one supplier, OEMs will worry about vendor lock-in risks—the same concern they already face with GMSL. A truly open standard needs multi-vendor support.

Cost vs. Performance Trade-offs

If OpenGMSL cannot provide significant cost savings or superior technical benefits, automakers may lack a compelling reason to switch.

What Adopters Need to Consider

For OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers evaluating OpenGMSL, here are the critical factors to assess:

Long-Term Viability

Will OpenGMSL garner strong industry backing, or is it just an experimental initiative?

If adoption stalls, will OEMs be left with unsupported technology?

Is GMSL3/2 expected to continue dominating the market despite OpenGMSL’s introduction?

Performance vs. Cost Considerations

Are OpenGMSL’s technical benefits significant enough to justify replacing GMSL3/2?

Does it offer lower power consumption for EV architectures?

Are latency improvements substantial enough to impact real-time ADAS systems?

Standardization & Compliance Risks

Will OpenGMSL align with future automotive networking standards?

Will it meet EMC compliance on the go?

Will multi-vendor support emerge, or will adopters remain dependent on a single supplier?

Example: CAN FD didn’t replace traditional CAN overnight—it gained traction in high-end vehicles first before wider adoption. OpenGMSL may need a similar phased approach.

Strategies for OpenGMSL 

(or Any Newcomer) to Compete

If OpenGMSL wants to gain traction, it must differentiate itself, form strategic alliances, and position itself wisely.

Performance Enhancements – OpenGMSL should focus on higher bandwidth, lower latency, Secuirty and superior error correction.

Power Efficiency – A design tailored for EV architectures could help drive adoption.

OEM & Tier 1 Collaborations – OpenGMSL should work directly with automakers to validate and integrate the technology into ADAS and autonomous platforms.

Alliances with Chipmakers – Partnering with major SoC and FPGA vendors ensures ecosystem-wide adoption.

Multi-source Model – To counter vendor lock-in fears, OpenGMSL must position itself as a real open, multi-vendor alternative.

How will new players adopting openGMSL compete in the GMSL2/3/4 Space?

Is there a real play opportunity for Silicon vendors?

Volumes are going to be low for openGMSL!

Can OpenGMSL make an impact?

While OpenGMSL promises an open ecosystem and multi-vendor flexibility, it must overcome industry inertia, technical hurdles, and vendor lock-in concerns.

For OEMs and suppliers, the key question isn’t whether OpenGMSL is innovative—it’s whether it’s worth the risk. Without clear advantages, automakers may default to the tried-and-tested GMSL3/2, leaving OpenGMSL as an interesting but ultimately sidelined initiative.

Will OpenGMSL disrupt its own predecessor, or will GMSL continue its dominance? 

The answer depends on execution, adoption, and industry alignment.

What do you think? 

Is OpenGMSL positioned for success, or does it need a stronger strategy?