Sr. No.	Title	Version
1	EA4 Software Naming Conventions	1.02
2	Software Design and Coding Standards	2.01
3	MM533A_FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_Design	See Synergy Sub Project Version

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

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 FDD

Required Global Data Outputs

Refer FDD

Specific Include Path present

Yes

Runnable Scheduling

This section specifies the required runnable scheduling.

Init	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
FordMsg3CCBusHiSpdInit1	None	RTE(Init)

Runnable	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
FordMsg3CCBusHiSpdPer1	None	RTE(10msec)

Memory Map REQUIREMENTS

Mapping

Memory Section	Contents	Notes
FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_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
N/A

Table 1: ARM Cortex R4 Memory Usage

NvM Blocks

None

Compiler Settings

Preprocessor MACRO

None

Optimization Settings

None

Appendix

2 - FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

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

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer EA4 SWC Implementation Peer Review Summary Sheet

Component Short Name:

FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd

Revision / Baseline:

MM533A_FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_Impl_2.0.0

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Work CR ID:

EA4#20139

Modified File Types:

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).

Yes

MDD

Yes

Source Code

Yes

PolySpace

Yes

Integration Manual

Yes

Davinci Files

All required reviewers participated

Yes

Comments:

Time spent ( to the nearest half hour)

review preparation

review meeting

review follow-up

Change owner:

Component developer reviewers:

Other reviewers:

Total hours

Content reviewed

Lines of code:

All

Elements of .arxml content:

All

Pages of documentation:

All

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

New baseline version name from Summary Sheet follows

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:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/27/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Matt Leser

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

Comments:

Customer data types 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

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

All changed files have been compared against previous

N/A

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

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

Yes

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:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/27/18

Component Type :

Application

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Matt Leser

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:

FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

Header File Name:

Header File Revision:

MDD Name:

FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_MDD.doc

Revision:

SWC Design Name:

MM533A_FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_Design

Revision:

2.0.0

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

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

N/A

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:

Synergy version matches change history

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

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:

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

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

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

Yes

Comments:

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

All code is mapped with SWC Design (all SWC

Yes

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:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/27/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Matt Leser

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:

FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_MDD.doc

MDD Revision:

Source File Name:

FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

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)

N/A

Comments:

Initial version

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:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/27/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Matt Leser

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:

FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

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:

for all functions in the component per Design

and Coding Standards rule [N47]

General Notes / Comments:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

04/27/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Matt Leser

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

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

Sheet 7: Integration Manual

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

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

Integration Manual Name:

FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_IntegrationManual.doc

Integration Manual Revision:

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:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Shishir Holenarasipura

Review Date :

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Approved by Reviewer(s):

N/A

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Other Reviewer(s):

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

Sheet 8: 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 9: 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

3 - MM533A_FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_MDD

Module Design Document

For

FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd

20-Apr-2018

Prepared For:

Software Engineering

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA

Prepared By:

TATA ELXSI,

INDIA

Change History

Description	Author	Version	Date
Initial version	TATA ELXSI	1	20-Apr-2018

Table of Contents

2 FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd & High-Level Description 6

3 Design details of software module 7

3.1 Graphical representation of FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd 7

3.2 Data Flow Diagram 7

3.2.1 Component level DFD 7

3.2.2 Function level DFD 7

4 Constant Data Dictionary 8

4.1 Program (fixed) Constants 8

4.1.1 Embedded Constants 8

5 Software Component Implementation 9

5.1 Sub-Module Functions 9

5.1.1 Init: FordMsg3CCBusHiSpdInit1 9

5.1.2 Per: FordMsg3CCBusHiSpdPer1 9

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 MM533A_FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_Impl.

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.

FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd & High-Level Description

The purpose of the Ford Message 3CC Bus High Speed function is to transmit Electric Power Assisted Steering information to other vehicle modules.

Design details of software module

Graphical representation of FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd

Data Flow Diagram

Refer FDD

Component level DFD

Refer FDD

Function level DFD

Refer FDD

Constant Data Dictionary

Program (fixed) Constants

Embedded Constants

Local Constants

Constant Name	Resolution	Units	Value
Cx1_Hands_Off	Single precision	Boolean	TRUE

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: FordMsg3CCBusHiSpdInit1

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

Module Outputs

Refer FDD

Per: FordMsg3CCBusHiSpdPer1

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 Runnables

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 Acronym	Description
FDD	Functional Design Document. (See references)

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 01.02
3	Software Naming Conventions.doc	EA4 01.02
4	Software Design and Coding Standards.doc	EA4 2.01
5	FDD: MM533A_FordMsg3CCBusHiSpd_Design	See Synergy subproject version