1 - 1. Overview

Standards

Nexteer Manufacturing Services adhere to the ISO-14229 standard for Automotive Diagnostic Services as well as ISO-15765 (Transport Layer) standard for sending data packets over a CAN-Bus.

Connection Details

Request ID (to ECU): 0x712
Response ID (from ECU): 0x710

Byte Ordering

All data is transfered in Motorola format (most significant byte first - also known as big-endian).

NvM Values

For EA4, an ignition cycle or ECU reset is required to commit any and all stored values from Volatile Memory (RAM) to Non-Volatile Memory (NvM). When an auto trim, clear trim, write trim, or similar service is used to modify any value stored in NvM a flag is set within the controller indicating that the value is to be written to NvM on the next shutdown. The power cycle can be provided by means of a cycling of physical ignition (EPS ENA) or by issuing an ECU reset (11 60) service. The reception of a positive response from the ECU reset service indicates completion of NvM writes at which time it is safe to remove battery.

2 - 2. General Negative Responses

This is a comprehensive list of all negative response codes as defined by the ISO-14229 specification. A value of “Yes” in the columns below indicates that the NRC is applicable to ALL services of the corresponding type regardless of whether or not it is expressly listed in the “Unique Negative Responses” section of a specific service.

NRCDescription0x220x2E0x2F0x31
0x11General service not supportedYesYesYesYes
0x12Sub-function nut supportedNoNoYesYes
0x13Invalid lengthYesYesYesYes
0x22Conditions not correctNoNoNoNo
0x24Request sequence errorNoNoNoNo
0x31Request out of rangeNoNoNoNo
0x33Security access deniedNoNoNoNo
0x35Invalid KeyNoNoNoNo
0x36Exceeded number of attemptsNoNoNoNo
0x37Time delay not expiredNoNoNoNo
0x78Request received, response pendingNoNoNoNo
0x7ESub-function not supported in current sessionNoNoNoNo
0x7FService not supported in current sessionYesYesYesYes
0x81Engine RPM too highNoNoNoNo
0x82Engine RPM too lowNoNoNoNo
0x83Engine runningNoNoNoNo
0x84Engine not runningNoNoNoNo
0x85Engine run time too lowNoNoNoNo
0x86Temperature too highNoNoNoNo
0x87Temperature too lowNoNoNoNo
0x88Vehicle speed too highNoNoNoNo
0x89Vehicle speed too lowNoNoNoNo
0x8AThrottle too highNoNoNoNo
0x8BThrottle too lowNoNoNoNo
0x8CTransmission not in neutralNoNoNoNo
0x8DTransmission not in gearNoNoNoNo
0x8FBrake not appliedNoNoNoNo
0x90Transmission not in parkNoNoNoNo
0x92Voltage too highNoNoNoNo
0x93Voltage too lowNoNoNoNo

3 - 3. Document Conventions

Terms

NvM
Non-Volatile Memory

Hexadecimal Values

Hexadecimal values in this document will always be prefixed with “0x”. Hexadecimal format values in transaction snippets will be represented by a pair of x’s, for example:

xx

ASCII Values

ASCII text strings in transaction snippets will be represented by a pair of a’s, for example:

aa

Bitfields (Binary Values)

Binary values in this document will always be prefixed with “0b”. Binary (or bitfield) values in transaction snippets will be represented by single ‘b’ characters, for example:

b

Binary values will always be in groups that are multiples of 8 bits. In cases where some bits are unused, the unused bits will be marked as “Reserved”, for example.

bbbb b b b b
|    | | | |
|    | | | '-- Bit 0
|    | | '-- Bit 1
|    | '-- Bit 2
|    '-- Bit 3
'-- Reserved

Reserved bits should be passed as zeros on writes and reads.

Grouped Bytes

If bytes are grouped (for example, 4 bytes used to represent a single 32-bit value) the transaction snippet will show the bytes as being connected using the ‘o’ character, for example:

xx xx xx xx
|  |  |  |
'--o--o--o-- Represents a 32-bit value

Grouped values are always in Motorola format (i.e. most-significant byte first).

Floating Point Numbers

Floating point values are represented in transaction snippets as four ‘f’ character pairs, for example:

ff ff ff ff
|  |  |  |
'--o--o--o-- Single-precision floating point value

The four pairs represent the four bytes of data transmitted over CAN that make up the single precision float value. The four pairs will always be grouped using the conventions outlined in section 2.3 above.

Grouped values are always in Motorola format (i.e. most-significant byte first).

Units

Units in transaction snippets will be called out inside a pair of square braces, for example:

[MotNwtMtr]

If no units are specified, then the signal’s units are assumed to be Counts.

Ranges

Ranges for signals in transaction snippets will be called out inside a pair of parentheses, for example:

(minimum, maximum)

If no range is specified, then the range for the signal’s value is assumed to be bounded by the signals type.

TypeMinimumMaximum
uint80255
uint16065535
uint3204294967295
sint8-128127
sint16-3276832767
sint32-21474836482147483647
float32error*error*
  • *The float32 type does not have a specific minimum nor maximum value and thus each signal is required to provide a valid range specific to each.

Scale/Offset

Scale values for signals in transaction snippets will be called out inside a pair of curly braces, for example:

{*1/(2^16)}

The above scale would imply multiplying the raw value from the CAN bus by 1/65536 to achieve the scaled representation. An example including an offset would look like this:

{*1/(2^4) +11.0125}

In this second example, the raw value from the bus shall have a scale of 1/16 applied and then an offset of +11.0125 added. Offsets may be positive or negative as indicated by the preceding sign.

4 - CmnMfgSrv_PeerReviewChecklist


Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Davinci Files
Source Code
PolySpace


Sheet 1: Summary Sheet
























Rev 1.28-Jun-15

Peer Review Summary Sheet


























Synergy Project Name:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed. This should be the Module Short Name from Synergy Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request. NM001A_CmnMfgSrv_Impl
Revision / Baseline:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which Synergy revision of this component is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request. NM001A_CmnMfgSrv_Impl_0.27.0

























Change Owner:


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


EA4#17640





























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















































































































































































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






















































Reviewed:































N/AMDD


YesSource Code


NoPolySpace









































NoIntegration Manual


YesDavinci Files








































































Comments:

Review covered changes for this revision only



























































































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





















Sheet 2: Synergy Project

Peer Review Meeting Log (Component Synergy Project Review)



















































Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No










New baseline version name from Summary Sheet follows








Yes
Comments:



naming convention





































Project contains necessary subprojects








Yes
Comments:










































Project contains the correct version of subprojects








Yes
Comments:










































Design subproject is correct version








N/A
Comments:

No design at this time








































General Notes / Comments:



























































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


























Change Owner:

Jared Julien


Review Date :

11/21/17
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Brendon Binder


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 3: Davinci Files






















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


























Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No










Only StdDef Port types are used








Yes
Comments:










































For components not using application data types, do all








Yes
Comments:



port interface names end in PortIf and a sequence number





























































Non-program-specific components saved








Yes
Comments:




in Autosar 4.0.3 format




































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








Yes
Comments:

No change to .tt file

change correctly




































*Cfg.h.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator generates








Yes
Comments:

No change to .tt file

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



























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
















All changed files have been compared against previous








Yes
Comments:




versions (If available)

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


































Automated validation check is performed








Yes
Comments:

























































Naming conventions followed. All names should








N/A
Comments:

Naming conventions followed, but DataDict.m is not available







match DataDict.m













































Sender/Receiver port properties match DataDict.m








N/A
Comments:

DataDict.m is not available







file (use .m file helper tool)













































Calibration port properties match DataDict.m








N/A
Comments:

Naming conventions followed, but DataDict.m is not available







file (use .m file helper tool)













































Components using application data types:























Sender/Receiver port initialization values match







N/A
Comments:










DataDict.m file














































Calibration port initialization values match







N/A
Comments:










DataDict.m file













































Components not using application data types:























Sender/Receiver port initialization values match







N/A
Comments:

DataDict.m is not available







DataDict.m file and have been converted to counts






















for fixed point types














































Calibration port initialization values match







N/A
Comments:

DataDict.m is not available







DataDict.m file and have been converted to counts






















for fixed point types














































Mapping set and all unused items have been







Yes
Comments:










removed













































All sender/receiver port read/writes using direct








Yes
Comments:










read/writes(List justification if not)













































Runnable calling frequencies match FDD








N/A
Comments:

No FDD






























DataDict.m display variables: created as








N/A
Comments:

FDD, DataDict.m is not available






PerInstanceMemory. Matches the FDD





































Component is correct component type








Yes
Comments:











































































General Notes / Comments:



























































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


























Change Owner:

Jared Julien
Review Date :

11/21/17
Component Type :


Application



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Brendon Binder
Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes

































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 4: Source Code






















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

























Source File Name:


CmnMfgSrv.c

Source File Revision:


27




SrvFD62.c




1




SrvFD63.c




1




SrvFD73.c




1




SrvFDC1.c




1




SrvFDC2.c




1




SrvFDC9.c




1




SrvFDCA.c




1




SrvFDF4.c




4




SrvFDF5.c




4




SrvFDF6.c




1




SrvFDF7.c




1
Header File Name:




Header File Revision:


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










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

























MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:
N/A

























FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:




N/A

Revision:
N/A


























Quality Check Items:



































Rationale is required for all answers of No









Working EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:















































for variable names







Yes
Comments:

















































for constant names







Yes
Comments:

















































for function names







Yes
Comments:

















































for other names (component, memory







Yes
Comments:










mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)




































All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring








Yes
Comments:









all outputs are initialized prior to being written





































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








N/A
Comments:

Not applicable for EA4






requirements tracability in the FDD





































All variables are declared at the function level.








Yes
Comments:
























Synergy version matches change history





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


Yes
Comments:



and Version Control version in file comment block





































Change log contains detailed description of changes








Yes
Comments:



and Work CR number





































Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)








N/A
Comments:

No design at this time







































Verified no Compiler Errors or Warnings


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





Yes
Comments:

CmnMfgSrv.c does not compile due to errors with definitions in contract headers but does compile without warnings in T1xx project













































Component.h is included








Yes
Comments:
























All other includes are actually needed. (System includes








Yes
Comments:









only allowed in Nexteer library components)





































Software Design and Coding Standards followed:











Version: 2.1

























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:

Services intentionally deviate from standard







contain correct information: [N43]










to provide additional information relevant to each service.

























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







No
Comments:

To be added as part of EA4#12632







is per standard





































All execution-order-dependent code can be







Yes
Comments:










recognized by the compiler: [N80]





































All loops have termination conditions that ensure







Yes
Comments:










finite loop iterations: [N63]





































All divides protect against divide by zero







N/A
Comments:

No division







if needed: [N65]





































All integer division and modulus operations







N/A
Comments:

No division







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-unsiged conversions ensure the.







N/A
Comments:










float value is non-negative: [N67]





































All conversions between signed and unsigned







Yes
Comments:










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





































All pointer dereferencing protects against







N/A
Comments:










null pointer if needed: [N70]





































Component outputs are limited to the legal range







Yes
Comments:

M-file is not official, but outputs are limited







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





































All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD







N/A
Comments:

No FDD at this time







subfunctions and/or model blocks identified













with code comments; all code corresponds to






















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













































Review did not identify violations of other








Yes
Comments:









coding standard rules





































Anomaly or Design Work CR created








N/A
Comments:









for any FDD corrections needed































































General Notes / Comments:

















































































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


























Change Owner:

Jared Julien


Review Date :

11/21/17
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Brendon Binder


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 5: PolySpace






















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


























Source File Name:


CmnMfgSrv.cSource File Revision:


27

Source File Name:


SrvFD62.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


SrvFD63.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


SrvFD73.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


SrvFDC1.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


SrvFDC2.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


SrvFDC9.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


SrvFDCA.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


SrvFDF4.cSource File Revision:


4

Source File Name:


SrvFDF5.cSource File Revision:


4

Source File Name:


SrvFDF6.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:


SrvFDF7.cSource File Revision:


1

Source File Name:



Source File Revision:






























EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:







01.02.00







Poly Space version:


Windows User: eg. 2013b N/A
Polyspace sub project version:




Windows User: eg. TL108a_PolyspaceSuprt_1.0.0 N/A

QAC version:


Windows User: eg 8.1.1-R 8.1.1-R
QAC sub project version:




Windows User: eg. TL_100A_1.1.0 1.2.0


























Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No



































Contract Folder's header files are appropriate and





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


Yes
Comments:




function prototypes match the latest component version







































100% Compliance to the EA4 Static AnalysisNo
Comments:





Compliance Guideline










New deviations are needed - TBD EA4#12632

















Are previously added justification and deviation








N/A
Comments:





comments still appropriate






































Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved








N/A
Comments:





deviation tags






































Cyclomatic complexity and Static path count OK






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

Yes
Comments:





for all functions in the component per Design














and Coding Standards rule [N47]

































































































General Notes / Comments:























QAC was run and Polyspace was not. Project is to be brought up to current standards (including running Polyspace) under EA4#12632


































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


























Change Owner:

Jared Julien


Review Date :

11/21/17
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Brendon Binder


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):