This is the multi-page printable view of this section. Click here to print.

Return to the regular view of this page.

Component Implementation

1 - BattRtnCurr_IntegrationManual

Integration Manual

For

BattRtnCurr

VERSION: 2.0

DATE: 11-Oct-2017

Prepared By:

Software Group,

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA

Location: The official version of this document is stored in the Nexteer Configuration Management System.

Revision History

Sl. No.DescriptionAuthorVersionDate
1Initial versionKrzysztof Byrski1.021-Jul-2017
2Updated DaVinci Configuration parameters listKrzysztof Byrski2.011-Oct-2017

Table of Contents

1 Abbrevations And Acronyms 4

2 References 5

3 Dependencies 6

3.1 SWCs 6

3.2 Global Functions(Non RTE) to be provided to Integration Project 6

4 Configuration REQUIREMeNTS 7

4.1 Build Time Config 7

4.2 Configuration Files to be provided by Integration Project 7

4.3 Da Vinci Parameter Configuration Changes 7

4.4 DaVinci Interrupt Configuration Changes 7

4.5 Manual Configuration Changes 7

5 Integration DATAFLOW REQUIREMENTS 8

5.1 Required Global Data Inputs 8

5.2 Required Global Data Outputs 8

5.3 Specific Include Path present 8

6 Runnable Scheduling 9

7 Memory Map REQUIREMENTS 10

7.1 Mapping 10

7.2 Usage 10

7.3 Non RTE NvM Blocks 10

7.4 RTE NvM Blocks 10

8 Compiler Settings 11

8.1 Preprocessor MACRO 11

8.2 Optimization Settings 11

9 Appendix 12

Abbrevations And Acronyms

AbbreviationDescription
DFDDesign functional diagram
MDDModule design Document
FDDFunctional Design Document

References

This section lists the title & version of all the documents that are referred for development of this document

Sr. No.TitleVersion
1EA4 Software Naming Conventions01.01.00
2Software Design and Coding Standards2.1
3ES251A_BattRtnCurr_DesignSee Synergy Sub Project Version

Dependencies

SWCs

ModuleRequired Feature
None-

Note : Referencing the external components should be avoided in most cases. Only in unavoidable circumstance external components should be referred. Developer should track the references.

Global Functions(Non RTE) to be provided to Integration Project

  • BattRtnCurrPer1

Configuration REQUIREMeNTS

Build Time Config

ModulesNotes
BATTRTNCURR_FASTLOOPPROC_CNT_LOGLTakes values TRUE or FALSE

Configuration Files to be provided by Integration Project

CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.h

Da Vinci Parameter Configuration Changes

ParameterNotesSWC
BATTRTNCURR_CURRESTIMDIFTHD_AMPR_F32CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_FAILSTEP_CNT_U16CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_PASSSTEP_CNT_U16CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_FASTLOOPPROC_CNT_LOGLCDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_FILCUTFREQ_HZ_F32CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_GAIN_AMPRPERVOLT_F32CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_LOWRTHD_AMPR_F32CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_OFFSET_VOLT_F32CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_OUTPMAX_AMPR_F32CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_OUTPMIN_AMPR_F32CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr
BATTRTNCURR_UPPRTHD_AMPR_F32CDD_BattRtnCurr_Cfg.hES251A_BattRtnCurr

DaVinci Interrupt Configuration Changes

ISR NameVIM #Priority DependencyNotes
None

Manual Configuration Changes

ConstantNotesSWC
None

Integration DATAFLOW REQUIREMENTS

Required Global Data Inputs

See FDD DataDict.m

Required Global Data Outputs

See FDD DataDict.m

Specific Include Path present

Yes

Runnable Scheduling

This section specifies the required runnable scheduling.

InitScheduling RequirementsTrigger
BattRtnCurrInit1NoneRTE(Init)
RunnableScheduling RequirementsTrigger
BattRtnCurrPer1NoneISR(2 * MtrCtrlISR)
BattRtnCurrPer2NoneRTE(2ms)

.

Memory Map REQUIREMENTS

Mapping

Memory SectionContentsNotes
CDD_BattRtnCurr_START_SEC_CODECode
CDD_BattRtnCurr_MotCtrl_START_SEC_CODECode

* Each …START_SEC… constant is terminated by a …STOP_SEC… constant as specified in the AUTOSAR Memory Mapping requirements.

Usage

FeatureRAMROM
None

Table 1: ARM Cortex R4 Memory Usage

NvM Blocks

*See DataDict.m

Compiler Settings

Preprocessor MACRO

None

Optimization Settings

None

Appendix

None

2 - BattRtnCurr_MDD

Module Design Document

For

BattRtnCurr

October 11, 2017

Prepared For:

Software Engineering

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA

Prepared By:

Software Group,

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA
Change History

DescriptionAuthorVersionDate
Initial VersionKrzysztof Byrski121-July-2017
Updated as per Design version 1.1.0Krzysztof Byrski211-October-2017


Table of Contents

1 Introduction 4

1.1 Purpose 4

1.2 Scope 4

2 BattRtnCurr & High-Level Description 5

3 Design details of software module 6

3.1 Graphical representation of BattRtnCurr 6

3.2 Data Flow Diagram 6

3.2.1 Component level DFD 6

3.2.2 Function level DFD 6

4 Constant Data Dictionary 7

4.1 Program (fixed) Constants 7

4.1.1 Embedded Constants 7

5 Software Component Implementation 8

5.1 Sub-Module Functions 8

5.1.1 Init: BattRtnCurrInit1 8

5.1.2 Per: BattRtnCurrPer1 8

5.1.3 Per: BattRtnCurrPer2 8

5.2 Server Runables 9

5.3 Interrupt Functions 9

5.4 Module Internal (Local) Functions 9

5.5 GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions 9

6 Known Limitations with Design 10

7 UNIT TEST CONSIDERATION 11

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms 12

Appendix B Glossary 13

Appendix C References 14

Introduction

Purpose

Module Design Document for ES251A_BattRtnCurr

Scope

The following definitions are used throughout this document:

  • Shall: indicates a mandatory requirement without exception in compliance.

  • Should: indicates a mandatory requirement; exceptions allowed only with documented justification.

  • May: indicates an optional action.

BattRtnCurr & High-Level Description

Refer FDD.

Design details of software module

This function handles measurement of battery return current. It receives ADC samples representing current in volts and converts them to ampere units.

Additionally, it performs basic output signal limitation. Module design allows execution from motor control loop or 2ms periodic. Therefore two sets of input and outputs signals are available where ones prefixed with "MotCtrl" shall be used inside motor control loop.

Graphical representation of BattRtnCurr

Data Flow Diagram

Refer FDD

Component level DFD

None

Function level DFD

None

Constant Data Dictionary

Program (fixed) Constants

Embedded Constants

Local Constants

Constant NameResolutionUnitsValue
BATTRTNCURRPASSD_CNT_U081Cnt0
BATTRTNCURROVERMAX_CNT_U081Cnt1
BATTRTNCURRUNDERMIN_CNT_U081Cnt2
BATTRTNCURRFAILDADC_CNT_U081Cnt4
BATTRTNCURRESTIMDIFFFLT_CNT_U081Cnt8

Software Component Implementation

Sub-Module Functions

The sub-module functions are grouped based on similar functionality that needs to be executed in a given “State” of the system (refer States and Modes). For a given module, the MDD will identify the type and number of sub-modules required. The sub-module types are described below.

Init: Init1

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

Module Outputs

Refer FDD

Per: Per1

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

Store Module Inputs to Local copies

Refer FDD

(Processing of function)………

Refer FDD

Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs

Refer FDD

Per: BattRtnCurrPer2

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

Store Module Inputs to Local copies

Refer FDD

(Processing of function)………

Refer FDD

Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs

Refer FDD

Server Runables

None

Interrupt Functions

None

Module Internal (Local) Functions

None

GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions

None

Known Limitations with Design

None

UNIT TEST CONSIDERATION

None

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation or AcronymDescription
--

Glossary

Note: Terms and definitions from the source “Nexteer Automotive” take precedence over all other definitions of the same term. Terms and definitions from the source “Nexteer Automotive” are formulated from multiple sources, including the following:

  • ISO 9000

  • ISO/IEC 12207

  • ISO/IEC 15504

  • Automotive SPICE® Process Reference Model (PRM)

  • Automotive SPICE® Process Assessment Model (PAM)

  • ISO/IEC 15288

  • ISO 26262

  • IEEE Standards

  • SWEBOK

  • PMBOK

  • Existing Nexteer Automotive documentation

TermDefinitionSource
MDDModule Design Document
DFDData Flow Diagram

References

Ref. #TitleVersion
1AUTOSAR Specification of Memory Mapping (Link:AUTOSAR_SWS_MemoryMapping.pdf)v1.3.0 R4.0 Rev 2
2MDD GuidelineEA4 01.00.01
3Software Naming Conventions.doc01.01.00
4Software Design and Coding Standards.doc2.1
5ES251A_BattRtnCurr_DesignSee Synergy Sub Project Version

3 - BattRtnCurr_Review


Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Davinci Files
Source Code
MDD
PolySpace
Integration Manual


Sheet 1: Summary Sheet
























Rev 1.28-Jun-15

Peer Review Summary Sheet


























Synergy Project Name:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed. This should be the Module Short Name from Synergy Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request. ES251A_BattRtnCurr_Impl
Revision / Baseline:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which Synergy revision of this component is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request. ES251A_BattRtnCurr_Impl_1.1.0

























Change Owner:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify the developer who made the change(s) Rationale: A change request may have more than one resolver, this will help identify who made what change. Change owner identification may be required by indusrty standards. Krzysztof Byrski
Work CR ID:


EA4#16024





























kzshz2: Intended Use: Intended to identify at a high level to the reviewers which areas of the component have been changed. Rationale: This will be good information to know when ensuring appropriate reviews have been completed. Modified File Types:















































































































































































kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify who where the reviewers, what they reviewed, and if the reviewed changes have been approved to release the code for testing. Comments here should be at a highlevel, the specific comments should be present on the specific review form sheet. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. ADD DR Level Move reviewer and approval to individual checklist form Review Checklist Summary:






















































Reviewed:































YesMDD


YesSource Code


YesPolySpace









































YesIntegration Manual


YesDavinci Files








































































Comments:






























































































General Guidelines:
- The reviews shall be performed over the portions of the component that were modified as a result of the Change Request.
- New components should include FDD Owner and Integrator as apart of the Group Review Board (Source Code, Integration Manual, and Davinci Files)
- Enter any rework required into the comment field and select No. When the rework is complete, review again using this same review sheet and select Yes. Add date and additional comment stating that the rework is completed.
- To review a component with multiple source code files use the "Add Source" button to create a Source code tab for each source file.
- .h file should be reviewed with the source file as part of the source file.





















Sheet 2: Synergy Project

Peer Review Meeting Log (Component Synergy Project Review)



















































Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No










New baseline version name from Summary Sheet follows








Yes
Comments:



naming convention











ES251A_BattRtnCurr_Impl_1.1.0
























Project contains necessary subprojects








Yes
Comments:










































Project contains the correct version of subprojects








Yes
Comments:










































Design subproject is correct version








Yes
Comments:











































General Notes / Comments:



























































LN: Intended Use: Identify who were the reviewers and if the reviewed changes have been approved. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. KMC: Group Review Level removed in Rev 4.0 since the design review is not checked in until approved, so it would always be DR4. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Krzysztof Byrski


Review Date :

10/12/2017
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Mateusz Bartocha


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 3: Davinci Files






















Rev 1.28-Jun-15
Peer Review Meeting Log (Davinci Review)


























Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No










Only StdDef Port types are used








Yes
Comments:










































For components not using application data types, do all








Yes
Comments:



port interface names end in PortIf and a sequence number





























































Non-program-specific components saved








Yes
Comments:




in Autosar 4.0.3 format




































*Cfg.arxml.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator imported the








N/A
Comments:




change correctly










Not integration project
























*Cfg.h.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator generates








N/A
Comments:










the configuration header(s) file correctly
kzshz2: Either a generic sandbox or a baselined integration project can be used to verify









Not integration project







kzshz2: Either a generic sandbox or a baselined integration project can be used to verify
















All changed files have been compared against previous








Yes
Comments:




versions (If available)

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify if previous version was compared and only the expected change(s) was present. This is for text files only, not binary or GUIs Rationale: This is helpful in identifying unapproved (intended or mistaken) changes.


































Automated validation check is performed








Yes
Comments:










































Naming conventions followed. All names should








Yes
Comments:




match DataDict.m




































Sender/Receiver port properties match DataDict.m








Yes
Comments:




file (use .m file helper tool)




































Calibration port properties match DataDict.m








N/A
Comments:




file (use .m file helper tool)




































Components using application data types:























Sender/Receiver port initialization values match







N/A
Comments:




DataDict.m file










Application data types has not been used

























Calibration port initialization values match







N/A
Comments:




DataDict.m file










Application data types has not been used
























Components not using application data types:























Sender/Receiver port initialization values match







Yes
Comments:




DataDict.m file and have been converted to counts













for fixed point types














































Calibration port initialization values match







N/A
Comments:




DataDict.m file and have been converted to counts













for fixed point types














































Mapping set and all unused items have been







Yes
Comments:




removed




































All sender/receiver port read/writes using direct








Yes
Comments:




read/writes(List justification if not)




































Runnable calling frequencies match FDD








Yes
Comments:










































DataDict.m display variables: created as








Yes
Comments:



PerInstanceMemory. Matches the FDD





































Component is correct component type








Yes
Comments:





































































General Notes / Comments:



























































LN: Intended Use: Identify who were the reviewers and if the reviewed changes have been approved. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. KMC: Group Review Level removed in Rev 4.0 since the design review is not checked in until approved, so it would always be DR4. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Krzysztof Byrski
Review Date :

10/12/2017
Component Type :


CDD



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Mateusz Bartocha
Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes

































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 4: Source Code






















Rev 1.28-Jun-15
Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

























Source File Name:


CDD_BattRtnCurr.c
Source File Revision:


2
Header File Name:


CDD_BattRtnCurr.h
Header File Revision:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the source file is being review. Rationale: Required for traceability between source code and review. Auditors will likely require this. 1

























MDD Name:

BattRtnCurr_MDD.docx
Revision:
2

























FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:




ES251A_BattRtnCurr_Design
Revision:
1.1.0


























Quality Check Items:



































Rationale is required for all answers of No









Working EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:















































for variable names







Yes
Comments:











































for constant names







Yes
Comments:











































for function names







N/A
Comments:











































for other names (component, memory







Yes
Comments:




mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)




































All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring








Yes
Comments:



all outputs are initialized prior to being written





































Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD








N/A
Comments:



requirements tracability in the FDD











N/A for EA4
























All variables are declared at the function level.








Yes
Comments:










































Synergy version matches change history





kzshz2: Intended Use: Indicate that the the versioning was confirmed by the peer reviewer(s). Rationale: There have been many occassions where versions were not updated in files and as a result Unit Test were referencing wrong versions. This often time leads to the need to re-run of batch tests.


Yes
Comments:



and Version Control version in file comment block





































Change log contains detailed description of changes








Yes
Comments:



and Work CR number





































Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)








Yes
Comments:










































Verified no Compiler Errors or Warnings


KMC: Intended Use: To confirm no compiler errors or warnings exist for the code under review (warnings from contract header files may be ignored). Rationale: This is needed to ensure there will be no errors discovered at the time of integration. A Sandox project should be used; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.





Yes
Comments:










































Component.h is included








Yes
Comments:










































All other includes are actually needed. (System includes








Yes
Comments:



only allowed in Nexteer library components)





































Software Design and Coding Standards followed:











Version:

























Code comments are clear, correct, and adequate







Yes
Comments:




and have been updated for the change: [N40] and













all other rules in the same section as rule [N40],






















plus [N75], [N12], [N23], [N33], [N37], [N38],






















[N48], [N54], [N77], [N79], [N72]














































Source file (.c and .h) comment blocks are per







Yes
Comments:




standards and contain correct information: [N41], [N42]





































Function comment blocks are per standards and







Yes
Comments:




contain correct information: [N43]





































Code formatting (indentation, placement of







Yes
Comments:




braces, etc.) is per standards: [N5], [N55], [N56],













[N57], [N58], [N59]














































Embedded constants used per standards; no







Yes
Comments:




"magic numbers": [N12]





































Memory mapping for non-RTE code







Yes
Comments:




is per standard





































All execution-order-dependent code can be







Yes
Comments:




recognized by the compiler: [N80]





































All loops have termination conditions that ensure







N/A
Comments:




finite loop iterations: [N63]





































All divides protect against divide by zero







N/A
Comments:




if needed: [N65]





































All integer division and modulus operations







N/A
Comments:




handle negative numbers correctly: [N76]





































All typecasting and fixed point arithmetic,







N/A
Comments:




including all use of fixed point macros and













timer functions, is correct and has no possibility






















of unintended overflow or underflow: [N66]














































All float-to-unsiged conversions ensure the.







Yes
Comments:




float value is non-negative: [N67]





































All conversions between signed and unsigned







Yes
Comments:




types handle msb==1 as intended: [N78]





































All pointer dereferencing protects against







N/A
Comments:




null pointer if needed: [N70]





































Component outputs are limited to the legal range







N/A
Comments:




defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]





































All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD







Yes
Comments:




subfunctions and/or model blocks identified













with code comments; all code corresponds to






















some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]













































Review did not identify violations of other








Yes
Comments:



coding standard rules





































Anomaly or Design Work CR created








Yes
Comments: List Anomaly or CR numbers









for any FDD corrections needed































































General Notes / Comments:

















































































LN: Intended Use: Identify who were the reviewers and if the reviewed changes have been approved. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. KMC: Group Review Level removed in Rev 4.0 since the design review is not checked in until approved, so it would always be DR4. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Krzysztof Byrski


Review Date :

10/12/2017
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Mateusz Bartocha


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 5: MDD






















Rev 1.28-Jun-15
Peer Review Meeting Log (MDD Review)


























MDD Name:

BattRtnCurr_MDD.docx
MDD Revision:

2


























Source File Name:


CDD_BattRtnCurr.cSource File Revision:


2

Source File Name:


CDD_BattRtnCurr_MotCtrl.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


-Source File Revision:


-


























Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No










Synergy version matches document








Yes
Comments:













































Change log contains detailed description of changes








Yes
Comments:













































Changes Highlighted (for Unit Tester)








Yes
Comments:













































Diagrams have been included per MDD Guideline








Yes
Comments:











and reviewed






































All Design Exceptions and Limitations are listed








Yes
Comments:



















































Design rationale given for all global








Yes
Comments:











data not communicated through RTE ports, per














Design and Coding Standards rules [N9] and [N10].















































All implementation details that differ from the FDD are








Yes
Comments:











noted and explained in Design Rationale






































All Unit Test Considerations have been described








Yes
Comments:



















































General Notes / Comments:



























































LN: Intended Use: Identify who were the reviewers and if the reviewed changes have been approved. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. KMC: Group Review Level removed in Rev 4.0 since the design review is not checked in until approved, so it would always be DR4. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Krzysztof Byrski


Review Date :

10/12/2017
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Mateusz Bartocha


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 6: PolySpace






















Rev 1.28-Jun-15
Peer Review Meeting Log (QAC/PolySpace Review)


























Source File Name:


CDD_BattRtnCurr.cSource File Revision:


2

Source File Name:


CDD_BattRtnCurr_MotCtrl.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


-Source File Revision:


-


























EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:







01.02.00







Poly Space version:


Windows User: eg. 2013b 2013b
Polyspace sub project version:




Windows User: eg. TL108a_PolyspaceSuprt_1.0.0 TL108A_PolyspaceSuprt_2.0.1

QAC version:


Windows User: eg 8.1.1-R N/A
QAC sub project version:




Windows User: eg. TL_100A_1.1.0 N/A


























Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No



































Contract Folder's header files are appropriate and





kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify that the contract folder contains only the information required for this component. All other variables, constants, function prototypes, etc. should be removed. Rationale: This will help avoid unit testers having to considers object not used. It will also avoid having other files required for QAC.


Yes
Comments:




function prototypes match the latest component version







































100% Compliance to the EA4 Static AnalysisYes
Comments:





Compliance Guideline






































Are previously added justification and deviation








Yes
Comments:





comments still appropriate






































Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved








Yes
Comments:





deviation tags






































Cyclomatic complexity and Static path count OK






Creager, Kathleen: use Browse Function Metrics, STCYC and STPTH

Yes
Comments:





for all functions in the component per Design










Cyclomatic complexity: 8, static path: 48.


and Coding Standards rule [N47]

































































































General Notes / Comments:



























































LN: Intended Use: Identify who were the reviewers and if the reviewed changes have been approved. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. KMC: Group Review Level removed in Rev 4.0 since the design review is not checked in until approved, so it would always be DR4. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Krzysztof Byrski


Review Date :

10/12/2017
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Mateusz Bartocha


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 7: Integration Manual






















Rev 1.28-Jun-15
Peer Review Meeting Log (Integration Manual Review)


























Integration Manual Name:



kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which file is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this sheet is not attached to the wrong design review form. BattRtnCurr_IntegrationManual.doc

Integration Manual Revision:



kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the integration manual has been reviewed. Rationale: Required for traceability between the MDD and review. Auditors will likely require this. 2





























Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No










Synergy version matches header








Yes
Comments:










































Latest template used








Yes
Comments:










































Change log contains detailed description of changes








Yes
Comments:










































Changes Highlighted (for Integrator)








Yes
Comments:











































General Notes / Comments:



























































LN: Intended Use: Identify who were the reviewers and if the reviewed changes have been approved. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. KMC: Group Review Level removed in Rev 4.0 since the design review is not checked in until approved, so it would always be DR4. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Krzysztof Byrski


Review Date :

10/12/2017
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Mateusz Bartocha


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):