Customer Functions

N/A

Comments:

Bobby Osteen reviewed only the Source code and Davinci files on May 4, 2018 due to time constraints for pending build.

We will complete the review when the component is updated for TBA signals. Time spent on the project will be completed in the next review.

Time spent ( to the nearest half hour)

review preparation

review meeting

review follow-up

Change owner:

1

0

Component developer reviewers:

0

1

0

3

0

1

0

Total hours

1

3

0

4

Content reviewed

2074

N/A

New baseline version name from Summary Sheet follows

N/A

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 SWC Owner and/or SWC Design author and Integrator and/or SW Lead 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.

Each peer review shall start with a clean copy of the latest peer review checklist template. Save in the doc folder of the component implementation, with the file name in the format SWCShortName_Review.xlsx. If the existing review in Synergy has a different name, the name must be changed IN SYNERGY (rather than by syncing in a new file with the new name) so that the file history will be properly maintained.

Before the peer review, the change owner shall: (NOTE - time for completing these items is to be counted as the Change Owner Review Prep Time)
o Review the previous component peer review and copy any relevant comments to the new review sheet.
o Review all checklist items and make all corrections needed, so that the component is ready for peer review. The expectation is that peer review should find very few issues,
because the change owner has already used the checklist to ensure the component changes are complete and correct.
o Fill in all file name and version information as needed on peer review checklist tabs (file names may be copied from the previous peer review where appropriate)
o Fill in checklist answers (Yes/No/NA pulldowns) ONLY on those items which are NA for the current change. All other checklist items should be blank going into the review
meeting.

During the peer review meeting:
o For each page of the review, first review the items already marked as N/A for this change, to confirm that reviewers agree with this assessment; change the checklist box to
blank if it is found that the item does apply.
o Then review the items with the checklist box blank. After reviewing each of these items, the checklist box will be marked as "Yes", or the checklist box will be marked as
"No" with needed rework indicated or with rationale indicated.
o If any items are marked "No" with rationale indicated, this must be approved by a software supervisor or the software manager; there is a line in the "Review Board" section
of each tab to indicate who approved the "No" items on that tab.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Peer Review Meeting Log (Component Synergy Project Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Yes

Comments:

naming convention

Project contains necessary subprojects

Yes

Comments:

Project contains the correct version of subprojects

Yes

Comments:

Design subproject is correct version

Yes

Comments:

.gpj file in tools folder matches .gpj generated by TL109 script

Yes

Comments:

File/folder structure is correct per documentation in

Yes

Comments:

TL109A_SwcSuprt

General Notes / Comments:

All changed files have been compared against previous

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 3: Davinci Files

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Davinci Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Only StdDef Port interfaces and datatypes are used

No

Comments:

Ford data types and port interfaces used

(compare against TL107B to ensure only implementation

data types are used)

OBSOLETE/OBSELETE doesn’t appear in any arxml file

Yes

Comments:

Do all port interface names end in PortIf and a sequence

No

Comments:

Ford port interfaces used

number

Non-program-specific components saved

Yes

Comments:

in Autosar 4.0.3 format

For components with generated configurable content:

N/A

Comments:

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

change correctly

*Cfg.h.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator generates

N/A

Comments:

the configuration header file(s) correctly

Yes

Comments:

versions (If available) and changes match changes

needed as described by the work CR(s), all parent CRs

and parent anomalies, and the SWC Design change log.

Davinci files accurately implement SWC Design (DataDict.m

Yes

Comments:

file) in all areas where arxml was changed and/or the

DataDict.m file was changed as shown by

comparing the DataDict.m from the current SWC Design

with the DataDict.m used in the previous implementation.

(This is NOT always the predecessor.)

Automated validation check is performed with no issues found

No

Comments:

Warnings found due to non standard

Ford data types

Naming conventions followed. All names should

No

Comments:

Ford does not follow Nexteer naming conventions

match DataDict.m

Sender/Receiver port properties match DataDict.m file

No

Comments:

Data dictionary appends 1 for outputs

(name, data type, direction)

_Rq and _Qf, which differs from code

Calibration port properties match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

(name, data type)

Sender/Receiver port initialization values match

N/A

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

N/A

Comments:

removed

All sender/receiver port read/writes using "Write (explicit)"

N/A

Comments:

and "Read (explicit by argument)"(List justification if not)

Runnable calling frequencies match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

Runnable port access matches the DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

DataDict.m display variables: created as

N/A

Comments:

PerInstanceMemory. Name and data type match DataDict.m file.

Per Instance Memory names and data types

N/A

Comments:

match DataDict.m file

NVM blocks match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

(Named per naming convention. Default block

used if specified in DataDict.m file. Data type

matches DatatDict.m file)

Component is correct component type

N/A

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Component Type :

Application

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Steven Horwath

Sheet 4: Source Code

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

2

Header File Name:

Header File Revision:

MDD Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd_MDD.doc

2

SWC Design Name:

MM531A_FordMsg07EBusHiSpd_Design

Synergy version matches change history

3.0.0

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

EA4 Common Naming Convention followed:

1.01

EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:

1.02

for variable names

Yes

Comments:

for constant names

N/A

Comments:

for function names

N/A

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

N/A

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

Verified no possibility of uninitialized variables being

N/A

Comments:

written to component outputs or IRVs

Any requirements traceability tags have been removed

N/A

Comments:

from at least the changed areas of code

All variables are declared at the function level.

N/A

Comments:

Yes

Comments:

and Version Control version in file comment block

Change log contains detailed description of changes

Yes

Comments:

(including any anomaly number(s) being fixed) and

Work CR number

Code accurately implements SWC Design (Document

Yes

Comments:

or Model) in all areas where code was changed and/or

Simulink model was color-coded as changed and/or

mentioned in SWC Design change log.

Code comparison against previous version matches

Yes

Comments:

changes needed as described by the work CR(s), all

parent CRs and parent anomalies, and the SWC

Design change log.

Verified no Compiler Errors or Warnings

Yes

Comments:

(and verified for all possible combinations

of any conditionally compiled code)

Component.h is included

N/A

Comments:

All other includes are actually needed. (System includes

N/A

Comments:

only allowed in Nexteer library components)

Software Design and Coding Standards followed:

2.01

Code comments are clear, correct, and adequate

N/A

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

N/A

Comments:

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

Function comment blocks are per standards and

N/A

Comments:

contain correct information: [N43]

Code formatting (indentation, placement of

N/A

Comments:

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

[N57], [N58], [N59]

Embedded constants used per standards; no

N/A

Comments:

"magic numbers": [N12]

Memory mapping for non-RTE code

N/A

Comments:

is per standard

All access of motor control loop data uses macros

N/A

Comments:

generated by the motor control manager

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,

Yes

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-unsigned conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

N/A

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 SWC Design DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with SWC Design (all SWC

N/A

Comments:

Design subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some SWC Design subfunction and/or model block):

[N40]

Any other violations of design and coding

N/A

Comments:

standards noticed during the review are noted in the

comments section for rework.

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

for any SWC Design corrections needed

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

SWC owner and/or
SWC Design author:

Comments:

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Unit test co-ordinator:

Comments:

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 5: MDD

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (MDD Review)

MDD Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd_MDD.doc

MDD Revision:

2

Source File Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

2

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

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

N/A

Comments:

Design rationale given for all global

N/A

Comments:

data not communicated through RTE ports, per

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

All implementation details that differ from the SWC

N/A

Comments:

Design are noted and explained in Design Rationale

All Unit Test Considerations have been described

N/A

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 6: PolySpace

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (PolySpace Review)

Source File Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

2

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:

1.04

Poly Space version:

2013B

TL109A sub project version:

2.4.0

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

tools/local folders' header files are appropriate and

N/A

Comments:

function prototypes match the latest component version

100% Compliance to the EA4 Static Analysis

N/A

Comments:

Compliance Guideline

Are previously added justification and deviation

Yes

Comments:

comments still appropriate

Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved

N/A

Comments:

deviation tags

For any component source files (.c, .h, generated Cfg.c and Cfg.h)

N/A

Comments:

with conditional compilation, has Polyspace been run with all

combinations of build constants that can be used together in a build?

(Note which conditional compilation results have been archived)

Codemetrics count OK

Yes

Comments:

for all functions in the component per Design

and Coding Standards rule [N47]

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 7: help

Summary sheet:

Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed. This should match the component short name from the DataDict.m fileand the middle part of the Synergy project name, e.g. Assi for the SF001A_Assi_Impl Synergy project

Intended Use: Identify the implementation baseline name intended to be used for the changed component when changes are approved E.g. SF001A_Assi_Impl_1.2.0

Intended Use: Identify the developer who made the change(s) being reviewed

Intended Use: Identify the Implementation Work CR whose work is being reviewed (may be more than one)

Intended Use: Intended to identify at a high level to the reviewers which areas of the component have been changed.

Source code:

This item includes looking at all layers of Simulink model for possible color coding not reflected at a higher level, and includes looking at any intermediate SWC Design versions between the version being implemented and the version that was included as a subproject in the previous implementation.

Intended Use: Synergy version number of the file being reviewed. (Version number that Synergy displays on the checked out or unmodified
file in the working project)

Intended Use: Synergy version number of the file being reviewed. (Version number that Synergy displays on the checked out or unmodified file in the working project)

Intended Use: For SWC Designs, list the Synergy baseline number (just the number part of the Synergy baseline name) of the SWC Design baseline being implemented. E.g., for SF001A_Assi_Design_1.3.1, this field would say "1.3.1"

Intended Use: Indicate that the the versioning was confirmed by the peer reviewer(s).

Intended Use: To confirm no compiler errors or warnings exist for the code under review (warnings from contract header files may be ignored).

Intended Use: list version/revision of latest released Software Design and Coding Standards document.

Davinci Files

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

Polyspace

eg. 2013b

Integration manual

Intended Use: Identify which file is being reviewed

Intended Use: Identify which version of the integration manual has been reviewed.

Synergy

Refer to EA4 Common Naming Conventions document, section “Synergy Baseline Names for core components”

The following subprojects should be included for all component implementations:
• AR200A_ArSuprt_Impl
• AR201A_ArCplrSuprt_Impl
• TL101A_CptRteGen
• TL103A_CplrSuprt
• TL109A_SwcSuprt
• Corresponding _Design project used for the implementation

The following subprojects should be included as needed by each component:
• AR10xx_Nxtr*_Impl library components as needed by each component
• AR202x_MicroCtrlrSuprt_Impl as needed (for register header files for components making direct register access)[add notes about when to add a stub header file]
• Xx999x_xxxxGlbPrm_Impl as needed by each component
• TL105A_Artt for components with generated content

The following should NOT be included as subprojects:
• TL107x_DavinciSuprt (aka StdDef)
• TL100A_QACSuprt (QAC subproject was previously included but should be removed going forward)
• Any other component (not mentioned anywhere above) whose .h file is needed. For these components, a “stub” .h file should be created, containing only the multiple include protection and the definitions and function prototypes actually needed by the component with the #include, and placed in the “including” component’s local\include folder.

misc in Summary sheet

(integrator, designer, unit test coordinator, etc.)

For a new component, use number of lines in all source files reviewed, including files in the src and include folders and any generated cfg.h and cfg.c files. For a changed component, try to add up how many lines, including comments and blank lines, were in the changed areas that were reviewed. Not just the actual changed lines, but the number of lines in the blocks of code you had to look at to review the change.

add up the number of ports, number of PIM variables, number if IRVs, number of runnables, number of NVM blocks in the component (all of them for review of a new component, the new and modified ones for review of a change)

add the number of pages in the MDD and integration manual for a new component; for a modified component, count the number of pages that contained a change.

Reviewer

Required attendance for this type of change

Review spreadsheet tab(s)

Component group peer

All

Component owner and/or SWC Design author

*Initial creation of any new component
*Simulink model changes (any change to the model other than just updating the change log)

Source

Integrator and/or SW lead of first program planning to use the component

*Initial creation of any new component
*new or changed NVM blocks, NVM datatypes, or NVM usage (added or removed or changed NVM API calls in any runnable)
*Major rev (X changed in the X.Y.X design baseline number; means there was a component interface change)
*new or changed config params
*all MM component changes

Davinci files, Integration manual, source for NVM changes and for all MM component changes.

Unit test coordinator

Fixes for coverage issues

Source

SQA

None

For each reviewer category listed on each tab, there should either be
• the name of the reviewer who attended
or
• a comment indicating
o why that reviewer was not required for this change
or
o who approved holding the review without that required reviewer (approval must
be from the software manager or a software supervisor)

Sheet 8: Version History



File Version History
Version	Description	Author(s)	Revision Date	Approved By	Approved Date	Status
						Draft/ Released










Template Version History
Version	Description	Author(s)	Revision Date	Approved By	Approved Date	Status
1.0	Initial Version	SW Engineering team	24-May-15	NA	NA	Released
1.01	Changed name to be EA4 specific	SW Engineering team	25-Jun-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	Modified Summary Sheet General Guidelines, Clarified wording on first item in Synergy project sheet.	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	Made corrections and clarifications to Source Code check list.	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	updated Davinci, MDD, and Polyspace/QAC tabs	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.03	Aligned to portal version guidelines	Umesh Sambhari	21-Nov-17	NA	NA	Released
2.00	Summary sheet template: Changed title to indicate Implementation Peer Review Corrected and/or clarified mouse hover comments, added instructions, renamed some fields. Changed the default setting to "No" on the items reviewed	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17	Lonnie Newton, Steven Horwath, Kevin Smith, Lucas Wendling, Vinod Shankar	NA	Released
	Source code template: Removed hyperlink for naming conventions, corrected name of naming conventions document, added version field for naming conventions document. Changed item about requirements tags to reflect that they should be removed Added clarification that all combinations of conditionally compiled code must be checked Item about accurately implementing SWC Design is modified and a new item added, both to clarify where to look when determining needed changes. Added point for version of common naming conventions Reworded multiple items for clarity	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	Synergy project template: added items for file/folder structure added point on .gpj file in tools folder	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	Davinci files template: Clarified the StdDef item Added new item for OBSOLETE Clarified item on datadict.m comparison Removed the references to .m file helper tool Updated to reflect that all component should now use only implementation data types Added points on PIMs and NVMs	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	All template tabs: Added/clarified/removed mouse hover comments. Updated Review Board section Removed the gridlines from all tabs Updated titles to say "Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review" Changed all occurences of "FDD" to "SWC Design"	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
2.01	Added a help tab and appropriate links Added field on Summary sheet to report hours spent and content reviewed Changed wording in an item in Polyspace tab and Source code tab	SW Engineering team	21-Feb-18	Lonnie Newton, Steven Horwath, Kevin Smith, Lucas Wendling, Vinod Shankar	21-Feb-18	Released

2 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

FordBlaBoxIfCmp1_PeerReviewChecklist.html

2.1 - FordBlaBoxIfCmp1_PeerReviewChecklist

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer EA4 SWC Implementation Peer Review Summary Sheet

FordBlaBoxIfCmp1

CF111A_FordBlaBoxIfCmp1_Impl_0.0.1

Anu Keechery

EA4#22951

Check the file types that needed modification for the Work CR(s); macros for the check boxes will populate the appropriate checklist tabs for the review.

Review Checklist Summary:

Reviewed:

At start of review, all items below should be marked "No". At the end of the review, all items should be marked "Yes" or "N/A" where N/A indicates the reviewers have reviewed the existing (unchanged) item and confirmed no updates were needed for the Work CR(s).

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

N/A

PolySpace

N/A

Integration Manual

Yes

Davinci Files

N/A

Comments:

Bobby Osteen reviewed the Davinci files and source code on May 4, 2018 due to time constraints for the pending build.

We will complete the review once we add TBA functions to the component and run the Polyspace. Time spent on the project will be completed in the next review.

Time spent ( to the nearest half hour)

review preparation

review meeting

review follow-up

Change owner:

1

0

Component developer reviewers:

0

1

0

3

0

Total hours

1

2

0

3

Content reviewed

1268

N/A

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Davinci Files
Source Code
MDD
PolySpace
help
Version History

N/A

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 SWC Owner and/or SWC Design author and Integrator and/or SW Lead 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.

Each peer review shall start with a clean copy of the latest peer review checklist template. Save in the doc folder of the component implementation, with the file name in the format SWCShortName_Review.xlsx. If the existing review in Synergy has a different name, the name must be changed IN SYNERGY (rather than by syncing in a new file with the new name) so that the file history will be properly maintained.

Before the peer review, the change owner shall: (NOTE - time for completing these items is to be counted as the Change Owner Review Prep Time)
o Review the previous component peer review and copy any relevant comments to the new review sheet.
o Review all checklist items and make all corrections needed, so that the component is ready for peer review. The expectation is that peer review should find very few issues,
because the change owner has already used the checklist to ensure the component changes are complete and correct.
o Fill in all file name and version information as needed on peer review checklist tabs (file names may be copied from the previous peer review where appropriate)
o Fill in checklist answers (Yes/No/NA pulldowns) ONLY on those items which are NA for the current change. All other checklist items should be blank going into the review
meeting.

During the peer review meeting:
o For each page of the review, first review the items already marked as N/A for this change, to confirm that reviewers agree with this assessment; change the checklist box to
blank if it is found that the item does apply.
o Then review the items with the checklist box blank. After reviewing each of these items, the checklist box will be marked as "Yes", or the checklist box will be marked as
"No" with needed rework indicated or with rationale indicated.
o If any items are marked "No" with rationale indicated, this must be approved by a software supervisor or the software manager; there is a line in the "Review Board" section
of each tab to indicate who approved the "No" items on that tab.

3 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

FordBlaBoxIfCmp2_PeerReviewChecklist.html

3.1 - FordBlaBoxIfCmp2_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer EA4 SWC Implementation Peer Review Summary Sheet

FordBlaBoxIfCmp2

CF112A_FordBlaBoxIfCmp2_Impl_0.0.1

Disha Srivastava

EA4#22952

Check the file types that needed modification for the Work CR(s); macros for the check boxes will populate the appropriate checklist tabs for the review.

Review Checklist Summary:

Reviewed:

At start of review, all items below should be marked "No". At the end of the review, all items should be marked "Yes" or "N/A" where N/A indicates the reviewers have reviewed the existing (unchanged) item and confirmed no updates were needed for the Work CR(s).

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

N/A

PolySpace

N/A

Integration Manual

Yes

Davinci Files

N/A

Comments:

Bobby Osteen reviewed only the Source code and Davinci files on May 4, 2018. Ran the Polyspace bug finder but it is not reviewed.

Due to build timing constraints a complete review will be done later. Time spent on the project will be completed in the next review.

Time spent ( to the nearest half hour)

review preparation

review meeting

review follow-up

Change owner:

1

0

Component developer reviewers:

0

1

0

3

0

1

0

Total hours

1

3

0

4

Content reviewed

462

N/A

New baseline version name from Summary Sheet follows

N/A

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 SWC Owner and/or SWC Design author and Integrator and/or SW Lead 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.

Each peer review shall start with a clean copy of the latest peer review checklist template. Save in the doc folder of the component implementation, with the file name in the format SWCShortName_Review.xlsx. If the existing review in Synergy has a different name, the name must be changed IN SYNERGY (rather than by syncing in a new file with the new name) so that the file history will be properly maintained.

Before the peer review, the change owner shall: (NOTE - time for completing these items is to be counted as the Change Owner Review Prep Time)
o Review the previous component peer review and copy any relevant comments to the new review sheet.
o Review all checklist items and make all corrections needed, so that the component is ready for peer review. The expectation is that peer review should find very few issues,
because the change owner has already used the checklist to ensure the component changes are complete and correct.
o Fill in all file name and version information as needed on peer review checklist tabs (file names may be copied from the previous peer review where appropriate)
o Fill in checklist answers (Yes/No/NA pulldowns) ONLY on those items which are NA for the current change. All other checklist items should be blank going into the review
meeting.

During the peer review meeting:
o For each page of the review, first review the items already marked as N/A for this change, to confirm that reviewers agree with this assessment; change the checklist box to
blank if it is found that the item does apply.
o Then review the items with the checklist box blank. After reviewing each of these items, the checklist box will be marked as "Yes", or the checklist box will be marked as
"No" with needed rework indicated or with rationale indicated.
o If any items are marked "No" with rationale indicated, this must be approved by a software supervisor or the software manager; there is a line in the "Review Board" section
of each tab to indicate who approved the "No" items on that tab.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Peer Review Meeting Log (Component Synergy Project Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Yes

Comments:

naming convention

Project contains necessary subprojects

Yes

Comments:

Project contains the correct version of subprojects

Yes

Comments:

Design subproject is correct version

Yes

Comments:

.gpj file in tools folder matches .gpj generated by TL109 script

Yes

Comments:

File/folder structure is correct per documentation in

Yes

Comments:

TL109A_SwcSuprt

General Notes / Comments:

All changed files have been compared against previous

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 3: Davinci Files

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Davinci Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Only StdDef Port interfaces and datatypes are used

No

Comments:

Ford data types and port interfaces used

(compare against TL107B to ensure only implementation

data types are used)

OBSOLETE/OBSELETE doesn’t appear in any arxml file

Yes

Comments:

Do all port interface names end in PortIf and a sequence

No

Comments:

Ford port interfaces used

number

Non-program-specific components saved

Yes

Comments:

in Autosar 4.0.3 format

For components with generated configurable content:

N/A

Comments:

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

change correctly

*Cfg.h.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator generates

N/A

Comments:

the configuration header file(s) correctly

Yes

Comments:

versions (If available) and changes match changes

needed as described by the work CR(s), all parent CRs

and parent anomalies, and the SWC Design change log.

Davinci files accurately implement SWC Design (DataDict.m

Yes

Comments:

file) in all areas where arxml was changed and/or the

DataDict.m file was changed as shown by

comparing the DataDict.m from the current SWC Design

with the DataDict.m used in the previous implementation.

(This is NOT always the predecessor.)

Automated validation check is performed with no issues found

No

Comments:

Warnings found due to non standard

Ford data types

Naming conventions followed. All names should

No

Comments:

Ford does not follow Nexteer naming conventions

match DataDict.m

Sender/Receiver port properties match DataDict.m file

No

Comments:

Data dictionary appends 1 for outputs

(name, data type, direction)

_Rq and _Qf, which differs from code

Calibration port properties match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

(name, data type)

Sender/Receiver port initialization values match

N/A

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

N/A

Comments:

removed

All sender/receiver port read/writes using "Write (explicit)"

N/A

Comments:

and "Read (explicit by argument)"(List justification if not)

Runnable calling frequencies match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

Runnable port access matches the DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

DataDict.m display variables: created as

N/A

Comments:

PerInstanceMemory. Name and data type match DataDict.m file.

Per Instance Memory names and data types

N/A

Comments:

match DataDict.m file

NVM blocks match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

(Named per naming convention. Default block

used if specified in DataDict.m file. Data type

matches DatatDict.m file)

Component is correct component type

N/A

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Component Type :

Application

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Steven Horwath

Sheet 4: Source Code

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

2

Header File Name:

Header File Revision:

MDD Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd_MDD.doc

2

SWC Design Name:

MM531A_FordMsg07EBusHiSpd_Design

Synergy version matches change history

3.0.0

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

EA4 Common Naming Convention followed:

1.01

EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:

1.02

for variable names

Yes

Comments:

for constant names

N/A

Comments:

for function names

N/A

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

N/A

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

Verified no possibility of uninitialized variables being

N/A

Comments:

written to component outputs or IRVs

Any requirements traceability tags have been removed

N/A

Comments:

from at least the changed areas of code

All variables are declared at the function level.

N/A

Comments:

Yes

Comments:

and Version Control version in file comment block

Change log contains detailed description of changes

Yes

Comments:

(including any anomaly number(s) being fixed) and

Work CR number

Code accurately implements SWC Design (Document

Yes

Comments:

or Model) in all areas where code was changed and/or

Simulink model was color-coded as changed and/or

mentioned in SWC Design change log.

Code comparison against previous version matches

Yes

Comments:

changes needed as described by the work CR(s), all

parent CRs and parent anomalies, and the SWC

Design change log.

Verified no Compiler Errors or Warnings

Yes

Comments:

(and verified for all possible combinations

of any conditionally compiled code)

Component.h is included

N/A

Comments:

All other includes are actually needed. (System includes

N/A

Comments:

only allowed in Nexteer library components)

Software Design and Coding Standards followed:

2.01

Code comments are clear, correct, and adequate

N/A

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

N/A

Comments:

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

Function comment blocks are per standards and

N/A

Comments:

contain correct information: [N43]

Code formatting (indentation, placement of

N/A

Comments:

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

[N57], [N58], [N59]

Embedded constants used per standards; no

N/A

Comments:

"magic numbers": [N12]

Memory mapping for non-RTE code

N/A

Comments:

is per standard

All access of motor control loop data uses macros

N/A

Comments:

generated by the motor control manager

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,

Yes

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-unsigned conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

N/A

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 SWC Design DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with SWC Design (all SWC

N/A

Comments:

Design subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some SWC Design subfunction and/or model block):

[N40]

Any other violations of design and coding

N/A

Comments:

standards noticed during the review are noted in the

comments section for rework.

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

for any SWC Design corrections needed

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

SWC owner and/or
SWC Design author:

Comments:

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Unit test co-ordinator:

Comments:

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 5: MDD

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (MDD Review)

MDD Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd_MDD.doc

MDD Revision:

2

Source File Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

2

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

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

N/A

Comments:

Design rationale given for all global

N/A

Comments:

data not communicated through RTE ports, per

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

All implementation details that differ from the SWC

N/A

Comments:

Design are noted and explained in Design Rationale

All Unit Test Considerations have been described

N/A

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 6: PolySpace

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (PolySpace Review)

Source File Name:

FordMsg07EBusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

2

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:

1.04

Poly Space version:

2013B

TL109A sub project version:

2.4.0

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

tools/local folders' header files are appropriate and

N/A

Comments:

function prototypes match the latest component version

100% Compliance to the EA4 Static Analysis

N/A

Comments:

Compliance Guideline

Are previously added justification and deviation

Yes

Comments:

comments still appropriate

Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved

N/A

Comments:

deviation tags

For any component source files (.c, .h, generated Cfg.c and Cfg.h)

N/A

Comments:

with conditional compilation, has Polyspace been run with all

combinations of build constants that can be used together in a build?

(Note which conditional compilation results have been archived)

Codemetrics count OK

Yes

Comments:

for all functions in the component per Design

and Coding Standards rule [N47]

General Notes / Comments:

1 Abbrevations And Acronyms 4

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/19/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shawn Penning

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 7: help

Summary sheet:

Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed. This should match the component short name from the DataDict.m fileand the middle part of the Synergy project name, e.g. Assi for the SF001A_Assi_Impl Synergy project

Intended Use: Identify the implementation baseline name intended to be used for the changed component when changes are approved E.g. SF001A_Assi_Impl_1.2.0

Intended Use: Identify the developer who made the change(s) being reviewed

Intended Use: Identify the Implementation Work CR whose work is being reviewed (may be more than one)

Intended Use: Intended to identify at a high level to the reviewers which areas of the component have been changed.

Source code:

This item includes looking at all layers of Simulink model for possible color coding not reflected at a higher level, and includes looking at any intermediate SWC Design versions between the version being implemented and the version that was included as a subproject in the previous implementation.

Intended Use: Synergy version number of the file being reviewed. (Version number that Synergy displays on the checked out or unmodified
file in the working project)

Intended Use: Synergy version number of the file being reviewed. (Version number that Synergy displays on the checked out or unmodified file in the working project)

Intended Use: For SWC Designs, list the Synergy baseline number (just the number part of the Synergy baseline name) of the SWC Design baseline being implemented. E.g., for SF001A_Assi_Design_1.3.1, this field would say "1.3.1"

Intended Use: Indicate that the the versioning was confirmed by the peer reviewer(s).

Intended Use: To confirm no compiler errors or warnings exist for the code under review (warnings from contract header files may be ignored).

Intended Use: list version/revision of latest released Software Design and Coding Standards document.

Davinci Files

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

Polyspace

eg. 2013b

Integration manual

Intended Use: Identify which file is being reviewed

Intended Use: Identify which version of the integration manual has been reviewed.

Synergy

Refer to EA4 Common Naming Conventions document, section “Synergy Baseline Names for core components”

The following subprojects should be included for all component implementations:
• AR200A_ArSuprt_Impl
• AR201A_ArCplrSuprt_Impl
• TL101A_CptRteGen
• TL103A_CplrSuprt
• TL109A_SwcSuprt
• Corresponding _Design project used for the implementation

The following subprojects should be included as needed by each component:
• AR10xx_Nxtr*_Impl library components as needed by each component
• AR202x_MicroCtrlrSuprt_Impl as needed (for register header files for components making direct register access)[add notes about when to add a stub header file]
• Xx999x_xxxxGlbPrm_Impl as needed by each component
• TL105A_Artt for components with generated content

The following should NOT be included as subprojects:
• TL107x_DavinciSuprt (aka StdDef)
• TL100A_QACSuprt (QAC subproject was previously included but should be removed going forward)
• Any other component (not mentioned anywhere above) whose .h file is needed. For these components, a “stub” .h file should be created, containing only the multiple include protection and the definitions and function prototypes actually needed by the component with the #include, and placed in the “including” component’s local\include folder.

misc in Summary sheet

(integrator, designer, unit test coordinator, etc.)

For a new component, use number of lines in all source files reviewed, including files in the src and include folders and any generated cfg.h and cfg.c files. For a changed component, try to add up how many lines, including comments and blank lines, were in the changed areas that were reviewed. Not just the actual changed lines, but the number of lines in the blocks of code you had to look at to review the change.

add up the number of ports, number of PIM variables, number if IRVs, number of runnables, number of NVM blocks in the component (all of them for review of a new component, the new and modified ones for review of a change)

add the number of pages in the MDD and integration manual for a new component; for a modified component, count the number of pages that contained a change.

Reviewer

Required attendance for this type of change

Review spreadsheet tab(s)

Component group peer

All

Component owner and/or SWC Design author

*Initial creation of any new component
*Simulink model changes (any change to the model other than just updating the change log)

Source

Integrator and/or SW lead of first program planning to use the component

*Initial creation of any new component
*new or changed NVM blocks, NVM datatypes, or NVM usage (added or removed or changed NVM API calls in any runnable)
*Major rev (X changed in the X.Y.X design baseline number; means there was a component interface change)
*new or changed config params
*all MM component changes

Davinci files, Integration manual, source for NVM changes and for all MM component changes.

Unit test coordinator

Fixes for coverage issues

Source

SQA

None

For each reviewer category listed on each tab, there should either be
• the name of the reviewer who attended
or
• a comment indicating
o why that reviewer was not required for this change
or
o who approved holding the review without that required reviewer (approval must
be from the software manager or a software supervisor)

Sheet 8: Version History



File Version History
Version	Description	Author(s)	Revision Date	Approved By	Approved Date	Status
						Draft/ Released










Template Version History
Version	Description	Author(s)	Revision Date	Approved By	Approved Date	Status
1.0	Initial Version	SW Engineering team	24-May-15	NA	NA	Released
1.01	Changed name to be EA4 specific	SW Engineering team	25-Jun-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	Modified Summary Sheet General Guidelines, Clarified wording on first item in Synergy project sheet.	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	Made corrections and clarifications to Source Code check list.	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	updated Davinci, MDD, and Polyspace/QAC tabs	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.03	Aligned to portal version guidelines	Umesh Sambhari	21-Nov-17	NA	NA	Released
2.00	Summary sheet template: Changed title to indicate Implementation Peer Review Corrected and/or clarified mouse hover comments, added instructions, renamed some fields. Changed the default setting to "No" on the items reviewed	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17	Lonnie Newton, Steven Horwath, Kevin Smith, Lucas Wendling, Vinod Shankar	NA	Released
	Source code template: Removed hyperlink for naming conventions, corrected name of naming conventions document, added version field for naming conventions document. Changed item about requirements tags to reflect that they should be removed Added clarification that all combinations of conditionally compiled code must be checked Item about accurately implementing SWC Design is modified and a new item added, both to clarify where to look when determining needed changes. Added point for version of common naming conventions Reworded multiple items for clarity	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	Synergy project template: added items for file/folder structure added point on .gpj file in tools folder	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	Davinci files template: Clarified the StdDef item Added new item for OBSOLETE Clarified item on datadict.m comparison Removed the references to .m file helper tool Updated to reflect that all component should now use only implementation data types Added points on PIMs and NVMs	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	All template tabs: Added/clarified/removed mouse hover comments. Updated Review Board section Removed the gridlines from all tabs Updated titles to say "Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review" Changed all occurences of "FDD" to "SWC Design"	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
2.01	Added a help tab and appropriate links Added field on Summary sheet to report hours spent and content reviewed Changed wording in an item in Polyspace tab and Source code tab	SW Engineering team	21-Feb-18	Lonnie Newton, Steven Horwath, Kevin Smith, Lucas Wendling, Vinod Shankar	21-Feb-18	Released

4 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

5 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

5.1 - FordHwTqCdng_IntegrationManual

Integration Manual

For

FordHwTqCdng

VERSION: 1.0

DATE: 11-Jan-2018

Prepared By:

TATA

Trivandrum, INDIA

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

Revision History

Sl. No.	Description	Author	Version	Date
1	Initial version	TATA	1.0	01/11/2018

Table of Contents

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

Abbreviation	Description
DFD	Design Functional Diagram
MDD	Module Design Document
FDD	Functional Design Document

References

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

Sr. No.	Title	Version
1	FDD: CF076A_FordHwTqCdng_Design	See synergy sub project version
2	Software Naming Conventions	1.0
3	Software Coding Standards	2.1

Dependencies

SWCs

Module	Required Feature
None	N/A

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

None

Configuration REQUIREMeNTS

Build Time Config

Modules	Notes
None	N/A

Configuration Files to be provided by Integration Project

None

Da Vinci Parameter Configuration Changes

Parameter	Notes	SWC
None	N/A

DaVinci Interrupt Configuration Changes

ISR Name	VIM #	Priority Dependency	Notes
None			N/A

Manual Configuration Changes

Constant	Notes	SWC
None	N/A

Integration DATAFLOW REQUIREMENTS

Required Global Data Inputs

Refer DataDict.m file

Required Global Data Outputs

Refer DataDict.m file

Specific Include Path present

No

Runnable Scheduling

This section specifies the required runnable scheduling.

Init	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
FordHwTqCdngInit1	None	RTE Init

Runnable	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
FordHwTqCdngPer1	None	RTE (4ms)

Runnable	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
FordHwTqCdngPer2	None	RTE (10ms)

Srv Runnable	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
FIH_Read_EPS_Direct_BC_Torque	None	RTE (None)

Srv Runnable	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
FIH_Read_EPS_Inverse_BC_Torque	None	RTE (None)

Memory Map REQUIREMENTS

Mapping

Memory Section	Contents	Notes
None

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

Usage

Feature	RAM	ROM
None

Table 1: ARM Cortex R4 Memory Usage

Non RTE NvM Blocks

Block Name

None

Note : Size of the NVM block if configured in developer

RTE NvM Blocks

Block Name

None

Note : Size of the NVM block if configured in developer

Compiler Settings

Preprocessor MACRO

None

Optimization Settings

None

Appendix

None

5.2 - FordHwTqCdng_MDD

Module Design Document

For

FordHwTqCdng

June 19, 20158

Prepared For:

Software Engineering

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA

Prepared By:

Tata Elxsi,

Trivandrum, INDIA

Change History

Sl. No.	Description	Author	Version	Date
1	Initial Version	TATA	1.0	11-Jan-2018

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 5

1.1 Purpose 5

2 FordHwTqCdng & High-Level Description 6

3 Design details of software module 7

3.1 Graphical representation of FordHwTqCdng 7

3.2 Data Flow Diagram 7

Component level DFD 7

Function level DFD 7

4 Constant Data Dictionary 8

4.1 Program (fixed) Constants 8

Embedded Constants 8

5 Software Component Implementation 9

5.1 Sub-Module Functions 9

5.1.1 Init: FordHwTqCdngInit1 9

5.1.1.1 Design Rationale 9

5.1.1.2 Module Outputs 9

5.1.2 Per: FordHwTqCdngPer1 9

5.1.2.1 Design Rationale 9

5.1.2.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies 9

5.1.2.3 Processing of function 9

5.1.2.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs 9

5.1.3 Per: FordHwTqCdngPer2 9

5.1.3.1 Design Rationale 9

5.1.3.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies 9

5.1.3.3 Processing of function 9

5.1.3.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs 9

5.2 Server Runnables 10

5.2.1 Runnable: FIH_Read_EPS_Direct_BC_Torque 10

5.2.1.1 Design Rationale 10

5.2.1.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies 10

5.2.1.3 Processing of function 10

5.2.1.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs 10

5.2.2 Runnable: FIH_Read_EPS_Inverse_BC_Torque 10

5.2.2.1 Design Rationale 10

5.2.2.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies 10

5.2.2.3 Processing of function 10

5.2.2.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs 10

5.3 Interrupt Functions 10

5.4 Module Internal (Local) Functions 10

5.5 GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions 10

6 Known Limitations with Design 11

7 UNIT TEST CONSIDERATION 12

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms 13

Appendix B Glossary 14

Appendix C References 15

Introduction

Purpose

MDD for FordHwTqCdng

<Component Name> & High-Level Description

Please refer FDD.

Design details of software module

Graphical representation of <Component Name>

$C:\Users\ramachandran.mg\Desktop\guru\CF076A_FordHwTqCdng_Impl.JPG$

Data Flow Diagram

Component level DFD

Please refer FDD.

Function level DFD

Please refer FDD.

Constant Data Dictionary

Program (fixed) Constants

Embedded Constants

Local Constants

Constant Name	Resolution	Units	Value
Please refer Data Dictionary .m file	NA	NA	NA

Software Component Implementation

Sub-Module Functions

5.1.1 Init: <Component Name>Init1

5.1.1.1 Design Rationale

None

5.1.1.2 Module Outputs

None

5.1.2 Per: <Component Name>Per1

5.1.2.1 Design Rationale

None

5.1.2.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies

None

5.1.2.3 Processing of function

None

5.1.2.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs

None

5.1.3 Per: <Component Name>Per2

5.1.3.1 Design Rationale

None

5.1.3.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies

None

5.1.3.3 Processing of function

None

5.1.3.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs

None

Server Runnables

5.2.1 Runnable: FIH_Read_EPS_Direct_BC_Torque

5.2.1.1 Design Rationale

None

5.2.1.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies

None

5.2.1.3 Processing of function

None

5.2.1.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs

None

5.2.2 Runnable: FIH_Read_EPS_Inverse_BC_Torque

5.2.2.1 Design Rationale

None

5.2.2.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies

None

5.2.2.3 Processing of function

None

5.2.2.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs

None

Interrupt Functions

None

Module Internal (Local) Functions

None

GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions

None

Known Limitations with Design

In data dictionary,

Server invocation of GetRefTmr100MicroSec32bit is not defined for the Init runnable (FordHwTqCdngInit1).

The RTE server runnables FIH_Read_EPS_Direct_BC_Torque and FIH_Read_EPS_Inverse_BC_Torque are not available in StdDef.dcf and Ford_MM_4.arxml

Therefore, these runnables have been implemented as Non-RTE runnables for the current release.

The sub function IvsBoostCrv will be implemented in future. Therefore, this sub function is not implemented at the moment.

Note: This has resulted in some Dataflow defects in Polyspace and it will be resolved once the sub function is implemented in the subsequent build.

UNIT TEST CONSIDERATION

None.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation or Acronym	Description

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

Term	Definition	Source
MDD	Module Design Document
DFD	Data Flow Diagram

References

Ref. #	Title	Version
1	AUTOSAR Specification of Memory Mapping (Link:AUTOSAR_SWS_MemoryMapping.pdf)	v1.3.0 R4.0 Rev 2
2	MDD Guideline	EA4 01.00.00
3	Software Naming Conventions.doc	1.0
4	Software Design and Coding Standards.doc	2.1
5	FDD: CF076A_FordHwTqCdng_Design	See Synergy sub project version

5.3 - FordHwTqCdng_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
help
Version History

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer EA4 SWC Implementation Peer Review Summary Sheet

CF076A_FordHwTqCdng_Impl

CF076A_FordHwTqCdng_Impl_2.0.0

Mrudula Paturi

EA4#20518

Check the file types that needed modification for the Work CR(s); macros for the check boxes will populate the appropriate checklist tabs for the review.

Review Checklist Summary:

Reviewed:

At start of review, all items below should be marked "No". At the end of the review, all items should be marked "Yes" or "N/A" where N/A indicates the reviewers have reviewed the existing (unchanged) item and confirmed no updates were needed for the Work CR(s).

No

MDD

No

Source Code

No

PolySpace

No

Integration Manual

No

Davinci Files

Comments:

This component is being baselined without a design. No peer review done due to time constraint.

Functionality reviewed by Bobby Osteen. Approved by Steven Horwath.

Time spent ( to the nearest half hour)

review preparation

review meeting

review follow-up

Change owner:

0

Component developer reviewers:

0

0

Total hours

0

Content reviewed

1 Abbrevations And Acronyms 4

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 SWC Owner and/or SWC Design author and Integrator and/or SW Lead 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.

Each peer review shall start with a clean copy of the latest peer review checklist template. Save in the doc folder of the component implementation, with the file name in the format SWCShortName_Review.xlsx. If the existing review in Synergy has a different name, the name must be changed IN SYNERGY (rather than by syncing in a new file with the new name) so that the file history will be properly maintained.

Before the peer review, the change owner shall: (NOTE - time for completing these items is to be counted as the Change Owner Review Prep Time)
o Review the previous component peer review and copy any relevant comments to the new review sheet.
o Review all checklist items and make all corrections needed, so that the component is ready for peer review. The expectation is that peer review should find very few issues,
because the change owner has already used the checklist to ensure the component changes are complete and correct.
o Fill in all file name and version information as needed on peer review checklist tabs (file names may be copied from the previous peer review where appropriate)
o Fill in checklist answers (Yes/No/NA pulldowns) ONLY on those items which are NA for the current change. All other checklist items should be blank going into the review
meeting.

During the peer review meeting:
o For each page of the review, first review the items already marked as N/A for this change, to confirm that reviewers agree with this assessment; change the checklist box to
blank if it is found that the item does apply.
o Then review the items with the checklist box blank. After reviewing each of these items, the checklist box will be marked as "Yes", or the checklist box will be marked as
"No" with needed rework indicated or with rationale indicated.
o If any items are marked "No" with rationale indicated, this must be approved by a software supervisor or the software manager; there is a line in the "Review Board" section
of each tab to indicate who approved the "No" items on that tab.

Sheet 2: help

Summary sheet:

Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed. This should match the component short name from the DataDict.m fileand the middle part of the Synergy project name, e.g. Assi for the SF001A_Assi_Impl Synergy project

Intended Use: Identify the implementation baseline name intended to be used for the changed component when changes are approved E.g. SF001A_Assi_Impl_1.2.0

Intended Use: Identify the developer who made the change(s) being reviewed

Intended Use: Identify the Implementation Work CR whose work is being reviewed (may be more than one)

Intended Use: Intended to identify at a high level to the reviewers which areas of the component have been changed.

Source code:

This item includes looking at all layers of Simulink model for possible color coding not reflected at a higher level, and includes looking at any intermediate SWC Design versions between the version being implemented and the version that was included as a subproject in the previous implementation.

Intended Use: Synergy version number of the file being reviewed. (Version number that Synergy displays on the checked out or unmodified
file in the working project)

Intended Use: Synergy version number of the file being reviewed. (Version number that Synergy displays on the checked out or unmodified file in the working project)

Intended Use: For SWC Designs, list the Synergy baseline number (just the number part of the Synergy baseline name) of the SWC Design baseline being implemented. E.g., for SF001A_Assi_Design_1.3.1, this field would say "1.3.1"

Intended Use: Indicate that the the versioning was confirmed by the peer reviewer(s).

Intended Use: To confirm no compiler errors or warnings exist for the code under review (warnings from contract header files may be ignored).

Intended Use: list version/revision of latest released Software Design and Coding Standards document.

Davinci Files

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

Polyspace

eg. 2013b

Integration manual

Intended Use: Identify which file is being reviewed

Intended Use: Identify which version of the integration manual has been reviewed.

Synergy

Refer to EA4 Common Naming Conventions document, section “Synergy Baseline Names for core components”

The following subprojects should be included for all component implementations:
• AR200A_ArSuprt_Impl
• AR201A_ArCplrSuprt_Impl
• TL101A_CptRteGen
• TL103A_CplrSuprt
• TL109A_SwcSuprt
• Corresponding _Design project used for the implementation

The following subprojects should be included as needed by each component:
• AR10xx_Nxtr*_Impl library components as needed by each component
• AR202x_MicroCtrlrSuprt_Impl as needed (for register header files for components making direct register access)[add notes about when to add a stub header file]
• Xx999x_xxxxGlbPrm_Impl as needed by each component
• TL105A_Artt for components with generated content

The following should NOT be included as subprojects:
• TL107x_DavinciSuprt (aka StdDef)
• TL100A_QACSuprt (QAC subproject was previously included but should be removed going forward)
• Any other component (not mentioned anywhere above) whose .h file is needed. For these components, a “stub” .h file should be created, containing only the multiple include protection and the definitions and function prototypes actually needed by the component with the #include, and placed in the “including” component’s local\include folder.

misc in Summary sheet

(integrator, designer, unit test coordinator, etc.)

For a new component, use number of lines in all source files reviewed, including files in the src and include folders and any generated cfg.h and cfg.c files. For a changed component, try to add up how many lines, including comments and blank lines, were in the changed areas that were reviewed. Not just the actual changed lines, but the number of lines in the blocks of code you had to look at to review the change.

add up the number of ports, number of PIM variables, number if IRVs, number of runnables, number of NVM blocks in the component (all of them for review of a new component, the new and modified ones for review of a change)

add the number of pages in the MDD and integration manual for a new component; for a modified component, count the number of pages that contained a change.

Reviewer

Required attendance for this type of change

Review spreadsheet tab(s)

Component group peer

All

Component owner and/or SWC Design author

*Initial creation of any new component
*Simulink model changes (any change to the model other than just updating the change log)

Source

Integrator and/or SW lead of first program planning to use the component

*Initial creation of any new component
*new or changed NVM blocks, NVM datatypes, or NVM usage (added or removed or changed NVM API calls in any runnable)
*Major rev (X changed in the X.Y.X design baseline number; means there was a component interface change)
*new or changed config params
*all MM component changes

Davinci files, Integration manual, source for NVM changes and for all MM component changes.

Unit test coordinator

Fixes for coverage issues

Source

SQA

None

For each reviewer category listed on each tab, there should either be
• the name of the reviewer who attended
or
• a comment indicating
o why that reviewer was not required for this change
or
o who approved holding the review without that required reviewer (approval must
be from the software manager or a software supervisor)

Sheet 3: Version History



File Version History
Version	Description	Author(s)	Revision Date	Approved By	Approved Date	Status
						Draft/ Released










Template Version History
Version	Description	Author(s)	Revision Date	Approved By	Approved Date	Status
1.0	Initial Version	SW Engineering team	24-May-15	NA	NA	Released
1.01	Changed name to be EA4 specific	SW Engineering team	25-Jun-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	Modified Summary Sheet General Guidelines, Clarified wording on first item in Synergy project sheet.	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	Made corrections and clarifications to Source Code check list.	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	updated Davinci, MDD, and Polyspace/QAC tabs	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.03	Aligned to portal version guidelines	Umesh Sambhari	21-Nov-17	NA	NA	Released
2.00	Summary sheet template: Changed title to indicate Implementation Peer Review Corrected and/or clarified mouse hover comments, added instructions, renamed some fields. Changed the default setting to "No" on the items reviewed	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17	Lonnie Newton, Steven Horwath, Kevin Smith, Lucas Wendling, Vinod Shankar	NA	Released
	Source code template: Removed hyperlink for naming conventions, corrected name of naming conventions document, added version field for naming conventions document. Changed item about requirements tags to reflect that they should be removed Added clarification that all combinations of conditionally compiled code must be checked Item about accurately implementing SWC Design is modified and a new item added, both to clarify where to look when determining needed changes. Added point for version of common naming conventions Reworded multiple items for clarity	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	Synergy project template: added items for file/folder structure added point on .gpj file in tools folder	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	Davinci files template: Clarified the StdDef item Added new item for OBSOLETE Clarified item on datadict.m comparison Removed the references to .m file helper tool Updated to reflect that all component should now use only implementation data types Added points on PIMs and NVMs	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	All template tabs: Added/clarified/removed mouse hover comments. Updated Review Board section Removed the gridlines from all tabs Updated titles to say "Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review" Changed all occurences of "FDD" to "SWC Design"	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
2.01	Added a help tab and appropriate links Added field on Summary sheet to report hours spent and content reviewed Changed wording in an item in Polyspace tab and Source code tab	SW Engineering team	21-Feb-18	Lonnie Newton, Steven Horwath, Kevin Smith, Lucas Wendling, Vinod Shankar	21-Feb-18	Released

6 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

6.1 - FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr_Integration Manual

Integration Manual

For

CF067A FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr

VERSION: 1.0

DATE: 05-04-2018

Prepared By:

Jayakrishnan T,

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw

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

Revision History

Description	Author	Version	Date
Initial version	Jayakrishnan T	1.0	05/04/2018

Table of Contents

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 NvM Blocks 10

8 Compiler Settings 11

8.1 Preprocessor MACRO 11

8.2 Optimization Settings 11

9 Appendix 12

Abbrevations And Acronyms

Abbreviation	Description
DFD	Design functional diagram
MDD	Module design Document

References

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

Sr. No.	Title	Version
1	MDD Guidelines	Software Process Release 04.02.00
2	Software Naming Conventions	Software Process Release 04.02.00
3	Design and Coding standards	Software Process Release 04.02.00
4	FDD – CF067A_FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr_Design	Based of working copy

Dependencies

SWCs

Module	Required Feature
AR350A_ImcArbn_Impl

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

None

Configuration REQUIREMeNTS

Build Time Config

Modules	Notes
None

Configuration Files to be provided by Integration Project

None

Da Vinci Parameter Configuration Changes

Parameter	Notes	SWC
None

DaVinci Interrupt Configuration Changes

ISR Name	VIM #	Priority Dependency	Notes
None

Manual Configuration Changes

Constant	Notes	SWC
None

Integration DATAFLOW REQUIREMENTS

Required Global Data Inputs

Refer DataDict.m file in the FDD

Required Global Data Outputs

Refer DataDict.m file in the FDD

Specific Include Path present

No

Runnable Scheduling

This section specifies the required runnable scheduling.

Init	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimrInit1	None	RTE (Init)

Runnable	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimrPer1	Schedule after Per2	RTE (4ms)
FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimrPer2	None	RTE (4ms)

Memory Map REQUIREMENTS

Mapping

Memory Section	Contents	Notes
FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr_START_SEC_CODE

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

Usage

Feature	RAM	ROM
<Memmap usuage info>

Table 1: ARM Cortex R4 Memory Usage

NvM Blocks

None

Compiler Settings

Preprocessor MACRO

None

Optimization Settings

None

Appendix

None

6.2 - FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Davinci Files
Source Code
PolySpace
Integration Manual
help
Version History

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer EA4 SWC Implementation Peer Review Summary Sheet

FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr

CF067A_FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr_Impl_0.1.0

Jayakrishnan T

EA4#13431

Check the file types that needed modification for the Work CR(s); macros for the check boxes will populate the appropriate checklist tabs for the review.

Review Checklist Summary:

Reviewed:

At start of review, all items below should be marked "No". At the end of the review, all items should be marked "Yes" or "N/A" where N/A indicates the reviewers have reviewed the existing (unchanged) item and confirmed no updates were needed for the Work CR(s).

No

MDD

Yes

Source Code

Yes

PolySpace

Yes

Integration Manual

Yes

Davinci Files

No

Comments:

Deviation approved by Steven Horwath (due to time constraints)

Time spent ( to the nearest half hour)

review preparation

review meeting

review follow-up

Change owner:

1

3

0

Component developer reviewers:

0

3

0

7

0

Total hours

1

6

0

7

Content reviewed

751

41

New baseline version name from Summary Sheet follows

10

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 SWC Owner and/or SWC Design author and Integrator and/or SW Lead 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.

Each peer review shall start with a clean copy of the latest peer review checklist template. Save in the doc folder of the component implementation, with the file name in the format SWCShortName_Review.xlsx. If the existing review in Synergy has a different name, the name must be changed IN SYNERGY (rather than by syncing in a new file with the new name) so that the file history will be properly maintained.

Before the peer review, the change owner shall: (NOTE - time for completing these items is to be counted as the Change Owner Review Prep Time)
o Review the previous component peer review and copy any relevant comments to the new review sheet.
o Review all checklist items and make all corrections needed, so that the component is ready for peer review. The expectation is that peer review should find very few issues,
because the change owner has already used the checklist to ensure the component changes are complete and correct.
o Fill in all file name and version information as needed on peer review checklist tabs (file names may be copied from the previous peer review where appropriate)
o Fill in checklist answers (Yes/No/NA pulldowns) ONLY on those items which are NA for the current change. All other checklist items should be blank going into the review
meeting.

During the peer review meeting:
o For each page of the review, first review the items already marked as N/A for this change, to confirm that reviewers agree with this assessment; change the checklist box to
blank if it is found that the item does apply.
o Then review the items with the checklist box blank. After reviewing each of these items, the checklist box will be marked as "Yes", or the checklist box will be marked as
"No" with needed rework indicated or with rationale indicated.
o If any items are marked "No" with rationale indicated, this must be approved by a software supervisor or the software manager; there is a line in the "Review Board" section
of each tab to indicate who approved the "No" items on that tab.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Peer Review Meeting Log (Component Synergy Project Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Yes

Comments:

naming convention

Project contains necessary subprojects

Yes

Comments:

Project contains the correct version of subprojects

Yes

Comments:

Design subproject is correct version

No

Comments: Design not baseliend.Impl based of working copy

.gpj file in tools folder matches .gpj generated by TL109 script

Yes

Comments:

File/folder structure is correct per documentation in

Yes

Comments:

TL109A_SwcSuprt

General Notes / Comments:

All changed files have been compared against previous

Change Owner:

Jayakrishnan T

Review Date :

05/04/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Brendon Binder

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Steven Horwath

Sheet 3: Davinci Files

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Davinci Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Only StdDef Port interfaces and datatypes are used

Yes

Comments:

(compare against TL107B to ensure only implementation

data types are used)

OBSOLETE/OBSELETE doesn’t appear in any arxml file

Yes

Comments:

Do all port interface names end in PortIf and a sequence

Yes

Comments:

number

Non-program-specific components saved

Yes

Comments:

in Autosar 4.0.3 format

For components with generated configurable content:

N/A

Comments:

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

change correctly

*Cfg.h.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator generates

N/A

Comments:

the configuration header file(s) correctly

N/A

Comments:

versions (If available) and changes match changes

Initial version

needed as described by the work CR(s), all parent CRs

and parent anomalies, and the SWC Design change log.

Davinci files accurately implement SWC Design (DataDict.m

Yes

Comments:

file) in all areas where arxml was changed and/or the

Some PIMs are not present in synergy.Design not yet baselined

DataDict.m file was changed as shown by

comparing the DataDict.m from the current SWC Design

with the DataDict.m used in the previous implementation.

(This is NOT always the predecessor.)

Automated validation check is performed with no issues found

Yes

Comments:

Naming conventions followed. All names should

Yes

Comments:

match DataDict.m

Sender/Receiver port properties match DataDict.m file

Yes

Comments:

(name, data type, direction)

Calibration port properties match DataDict.m file

Yes

Comments:

(name, data type)

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

Yes

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 "Write (explicit)"

Yes

Comments:

and "Read (explicit by argument)"(List justification if not)

Runnable calling frequencies match DataDict.m file

Yes

Comments:

Runnable port access matches the DataDict.m file

Yes

Comments:

DataDict.m display variables: created as

N/A

Comments:

PerInstanceMemory. Name and data type match DataDict.m file.

Per Instance Memory names and data types

Yes

Comments:

match DataDict.m file

NVM blocks match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

(Named per naming convention. Default block

used if specified in DataDict.m file. Data type

matches DatatDict.m file)

Component is correct component type

Yes

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Jayakrishnan T

Review Date :

05/04/18

Component Type :

Application

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Brendon Binder

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Steven Horwath

Sheet 4: Source Code

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr.c

Source File Revision:

1

Header File Name:

NA

Header File Revision:

MDD Name:

SWC Design Name:

Synergy version matches change history

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

EA4 Common Naming Convention followed:

Version: 1.01

EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:

Version: 1.02

for variable names

Yes

Comments:

for constant names

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

Verified no possibility of uninitialized variables being

Yes

Comments:

written to component outputs or IRVs

Any requirements traceability tags have been removed

N/A

Comments:

from at least the changed areas of code

All variables are declared at the function level.

Yes

Comments:

Yes

Comments:

and Version Control version in file comment block

Change log contains detailed description of changes

Yes

Comments:

(including any anomaly number(s) being fixed) and

Work CR number

Code accurately implements SWC Design (Document

Yes

Comments: Design not baselind yet.Implementation based
on working copy and few issues identified in the same has been fixed.Design to update those while doing the baseline

or Model) in all areas where code was changed and/or

Simulink model was color-coded as changed and/or

mentioned in SWC Design change log.

Code comparison against previous version matches

N/A

Comments:

changes needed as described by the work CR(s), all

parent CRs and parent anomalies, and the SWC

Design change log.

Verified no Compiler Errors or Warnings

Yes

Comments:

(and verified for all possible combinations

of any conditionally compiled code)

Component.h is included

N/A

Comments:

All other includes are actually needed. (System includes

Yes

Comments:

only allowed in Nexteer library components)

Software Design and Coding Standards followed:

Version: 2.01

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

No

Comments: Bried description on inputs/outputs missing

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

N/A

Comments:

is per standard

All access of motor control loop data uses macros

N/A

Comments:

generated by the motor control manager

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,

Yes

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-unsigned conversions ensure the.

Yes

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

N/A

Comments:

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

All pointer dereferencing protects against

Yes

Comments:

null pointer if needed: [N70]

Component outputs are limited to the legal range

Yes

Comments:

defined in the SWC Design DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with SWC Design (all SWC

Yes

Comments: Design needs to fix issues that were reported.
Most of the rate limiter blocks were using incorrect PIM as
state variable

Design subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some SWC Design subfunction and/or model block):

[N40]

Any other violations of design and coding

N/A

Comments:

standards noticed during the review are noted in the

comments section for rework.

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments: List Anomaly or CR numbers

for any SWC Design corrections needed

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Jayakrishnan T

Review Date :

05/04/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Brendon Binder

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

SWC owner and/or
SWC Design author:

Comments:

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Unit test co-ordinator:

Comments:

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Steven Horwath

Sheet 5: PolySpace

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (PolySpace Review)

Source File Name:

FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr.c

Source File Revision:

1

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:

1.04

Poly Space version:

2013b

TL109A sub project version:

2.5.0

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

tools/local folders' header files are appropriate and

Yes

Comments:

function prototypes match the latest component version

100% Compliance to the EA4 Static Analysis

Yes

Comments:

Compliance Guideline

Are previously added justification and deviation

N/A

Comments:

comments still appropriate

Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved

Yes

Comments:

deviation tags

For any component source files (.c, .h, generated Cfg.c and Cfg.h)

N/A

Comments:

with conditional compilation, has Polyspace been run with all

combinations of build constants that can be used together in a build?

(Note which conditional compilation results have been archived)

Codemetrics count OK

Yes

Comments: Following the old metrics as per Steve Horwath

for all functions in the component per Design

and Coding Standards rule [N47]

General Notes / Comments:

Integration Manual Revision:

Change Owner:

Jayakrishnan T

Review Date :

05/04/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Brendon Binder

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Steve Horwath

Sheet 6: Integration Manual

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Integration Manual Review)

Integration Manual Name:

FordHwTqCmdOvrlLimr_Integration Manual

1

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)

N/A

Comments: Initial version

General Notes / Comments: