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

N/A

Integration Manual

N/A

Davinci Files

All required reviewers participated

Yes

Comments:

Time spent ( to the nearest half hour)

review preparation

review meeting

review follow-up

Change owner:

0.5

Component developer reviewers:

0.5

Other reviewers:

Total hours

Content reviewed

Lines of code:

Elements of .arxml content:

Pages of documentation:

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:

Matthew Leser

Review Date :

04/05/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Mrudula

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

Sheet 3: Source Code

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

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

Source File Name:

DutyCycThermProtn.c

Source File Revision:

Header File Name:

Header File Revision:

MDD Name:

DutyCycThermProtn_MDD.docx

Revision:

SWC Design Name:

SF009A_DutyCycThermProtn_Design

Revision:

4.1.0

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

EA4 Common Naming Convention followed:

Version: 01.01.00

EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:

Version: 01.02.00

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.

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

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:

Version:

Code comments are clear, correct, and adequate

Yes

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Yes

Comments:

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

Function comment blocks are per standards and

N/A

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

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,

N/A

Comments:

including all use of fixed point macros and

timer functions, is correct and has no possibility

of unintended overflow or underflow: [N66]

All float-to-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

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

Comments: List Anomaly or CR numbers

for any SWC Design corrections needed

General Notes / Comments:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Matthew Leser

Review Date :

04/05/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

SWC owner and/or
SWC Design author:

Nakul Shah

Comments:

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Integrator not needed for change

Unit test co-ordinator:

Comments:

Unit Test Co-ordinator not needed for change

Other Reviewer(s):

Mrudula

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

Sheet 4: MDD

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (MDD Review)

MDD Name:

DutyCycThermProtn_MDD.docx

MDD Revision:

Source File Name:

DutyCycThermProtn.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)

Yes

Comments:

Diagrams have been included per MDD Guideline

N/A

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:

Matthew Leser

Review Date :

04/05/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Mrudula

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

Sheet 5: PolySpace

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (PolySpace Review)

Source File Name:

DutyCycThermProtn.c

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:

01.04.00

Poly Space version:

2013b

TL109A sub project version:

2.3.0

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

Yes

Comments:

Compliance Guideline

Are previously added justification and deviation

Yes

Comments:

comments still appropriate

Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved

Yes

Comments:

deviation tags

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:

Matthew Leser

Review Date :

04/05/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Mrudula

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

Sheet 6: 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 7: 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 - DutyCycThermProtn_Integration Manual

Integration Manual

For

SF009A_DutyCycThermProtn

VERSION: 1.0

DATE: 02-Oct-2015

Prepared By:

Sarika Natu,

KPIT Technologies,

India

Revision History

Description	Author	Version	Date
Initial version	Sarika Natu	1.0	02-Oct-2015

Table of Contents

1 Abbrevations And Acronyms 4

2 References 5

3 Dependencies 6

3.1 SWCs 6

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

4 Configuration REQUIREMeNTS 7

4.1 Build Time Config 7

4.2 Configuration Files to be provided by Integration Project 7

4.3 Da Vinci Parameter Configuration Changes 7

4.4 DaVinci Interrupt Configuration Changes 7

4.5 Manual Configuration Changes 7

5 Integration DATAFLOW REQUIREMENTS 8

5.1 Required Global Data Inputs 8

5.2 Required Global Data Outputs 8

5.3 Specific Include Path present 8

6 Runnable Scheduling 9

7 Memory Map REQUIREMENTS 10

7.1 Mapping 10

7.2 Usage 10

7.3 Non RTE NvM Blocks 10

7.4 RTE NvM Blocks 10

8 Compiler Settings 11

8.1 Preprocessor MACRO 11

8.2 Optimization Settings 11

9 Appendix 12

Abbrevations And Acronyms

Abbreviation	Description
DFD	Design functional diagram
MDD	Module design Document

References

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 – SF009A_DutyCycThermProtn_Design	See Synergy sub project version

Dependencies

SWCs

Module	Required Feature
None

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

Runnable Scheduling

This section specifies the required runnable scheduling.

Init	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
DutyCycThermProtnInit1	None	RTE(Init)

Runnable	Scheduling Requirements	Trigger
DutyCycThermProtnPer1	None	RTE(100ms)

Memory Map REQUIREMENTS

Mapping

Memory Section	Contents	Notes
DutyCycThermProtn_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

See DataDict.m

Compiler Settings

Preprocessor MACRO

None

Optimization Settings

None

Appendix

None

3 - DutyCycThermProtn_MDD

Module Design Document

For

DutyCycThermProtn

Apr 03, 2018

Prepared By:

Matthew Leser

Nexteer Automotive

Change History

Description	Author	Version	Date
Initial Version	Sarika Natu(KPIT Technologies)	1.0	02-Oct-2015
Updated to version 2.0.0 of FDD	Krishna Anne	2.0	07-Apr-2016
Fix for anomaly EA4# 7558	Krishna Anne	3.0	29-Sep-2016
Updated to FDD v3.0.0	Shruthi Raghavan	4.0	14-Dec-2016
Updated as per FDD v4.0.0	TATA	5.0	25-Oct-2017
Updated Local Function Input	Matthew Leser	6.0	03-Apr-2018

Table of Contents

1 DutyCycThermProtn & High-Level Description 5

2 Design details of software module 6

2.1 Graphical representation of DutyCycThermProtn 6

2.2 Data Flow Diagram 7

2.2.1 Component level DFD 7

2.2.2 Function level DFD 7

3 Constant Data Dictionary 8

3.1 Program (fixed) Constants 8

3.1.1 Embedded Constants 8

4 Software Component Implementation 9

4.1 Sub-Module Functions 9

4.1.1 Init: DutyCycThermProtn_Init1 9

4.1.1.1 Design Rationale 9

4.1.1.2 Module Outputs 9

4.1.2 Per: DutyCycThermProtn_Per1 9

4.1.2.1 Design Rationale 9

4.1.2.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies 9

4.1.2.3 (Processing of function)……… 9

4.1.2.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs 9

4.2 Server Runables 9

4.3 Interrupt Functions 9

4.4 Module Internal (Local) Functions 9

4.4.1 Local Function #1 9

4.4.1.1 Design Rationale 9

4.4.1.2 Processing 10

4.4.2 Local Function #2 10

4.4.2.1 Design Rationale 10

4.4.2.2 Processing 10

4.4.3 Local Function #3 10

4.4.3.1 Design Rationale 10

4.4.3.2 Processing 10

4.4.4 Local Function #4 10

4.4.4.1 Design Rationale 11

4.4.4.2 Processing 11

4.4.5 Local Function #5 11

4.4.5.1 Design Rationale 11

4.4.5.2 Processing 11

4.4.6 Local Function #6 11

4.4.6.1 Design Rationale 11

4.4.7 Local Function #7 11

4.4.7.1 Design Rationale 12

4.4.8 Local Function #8 12

4.4.8.1 Design Rationale 12

4.4.8.2 Processing 12

4.5 GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions 12

5 Known Limitations with Design 13

6 UNIT TEST CONSIDERATION 14

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms 15

Appendix B Glossary 16

Appendix C References 17

DutyCycThermProtn & High-Level Description

The purpose of the Thermal Duty Cycle Protection is to limit and protect the system from excessive use, based on motor rotational velocity and system temperature. It also provides protection status information for use by other functions.

Design details of software module

Graphical representation of DutyCycThermProtn

Data Flow Diagram

See FDD

Component level DFD

See FDD

Function level DFD

See FDD

Constant Data Dictionary

Program (fixed) Constants

Embedded Constants

Local Constants

Refer .m file

Constant Name	Value
THERMLOADLIMSIZE_CNT_U08	8U
MULTFILTERSIZE_CNT_U08	6U
BITMASK2_CNT_U08	2U
BITMASK4_CNT_U08	4U
IDX5_CNT_U08	5U
IDX8_CNT_U08	8U

Software Component Implementation

Sub-Module Functions

Init: DutyCycThermProtn_Init1

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

Module Outputs

Refer FDD

Per: DutyCycThermProtn_Per1

Design Rationale

DutyCycThermProtn_Per1 function is divided into various functions to reduce the cyclomatic complexity.

The subsystems ‘Multiplier’ and ‘FilterPercMax’ are clubbed into ‘MultiFilterPercMax’ local function.

Store Module Inputs to Local copies

Refer FDD

(Processing of function)………

Refer FDD

Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs

Refer FDD

Server Runables

None

Interrupt Functions

None

Module Internal (Local) Functions

Local Function #1

Function Name	FiltSVReinit	Type	Min	Max
Arguments Passed	IgnTiOff_Cnt_T_u32	uint32	0	1720000
	VehTiVld_Cnt_T_Logl	Boolean	0	1
Return Value	None

Design Rationale

Name of local function matches with subsystem name from FDD

Processing

Local Function #2

Function Name	TemperatureSelection	Type	Min	Max
Arguments Passed	DiagcStsLimdTPrfmnc_Cnt_T_Logl	boolean	0	1
	EcuTFild_DegCgrd_T_f32	float32	-50	150
	MotFetT_DegCgrd_T_f32	float32	-50	200
	MotMagT_DegCgrd_T_f32	float32	-50	150
	MotWidgT_DegCgrd_T_f32	float32	-50	300
	*Mult12Temp_DegCgrd_T_ s15p0	Sint16	-50	200
	*Mult36Temp_DegCgrd_T_s15p0	Sint16	-50	300
Return Value	SlcTemp_DegCgrd_T_s15p0	sint16	-50	300

Design Rationale

Name of local function matches with subsystem name from FDD

Note: The outputs of the function are Mult12Temp_DegCgrd_T_s15p0, Mult36Temp_DegCgrd_T_s15p0 and SlcTemp_DegCgrd_T_f32.

Processing

None

Local Function #3

Function Name	TemperatureLimiting	Type	Min	Max
Arguments Passed	EcuTFild_DegCgrd_T_f32	float32	-50	150
	MotWidgT_DegCgrd_T_f32	float32	-50	300
Return Value	AbsTempLimitSlew_MotNwtMtr_T_f32	float32	0	8.79

Design Rationale

Name of local function matches with subsystem name from FDD

Processing

None

Local Function #4

Function Name	MultiFilterPercMax	Type	Min	Max
Arguments Passed	Mult12Temp_DegCgrd_T_s15p0	sint16	-50	200
	Mult36Temp_DegCgrd_T_s15p0	sint16	-50	300
	DutyCycThermProtnDi_Cnt_T_Logl	boolean	0	1
	MotVelCrf_MotRadPerSec_T_f32	float32	-1350	1350
	MotCurrPeakEstimd_AmprSqd_T_f32	float32	0	62500
	MotCurrPeakEstimdFild_AmprSqd_T_f32	float32	0	62500
	*MaxOut_Uls_T_u16p0	uint16	0	200
Return Value	ThermLimSlowFilMax_Uls_T_f32	float32	0	200

Design Rationale

The subsystems ‘Multiplier’ and ‘FilterPercMax’ are clubbed into ‘MultiFilterPercMax’ local function.

Note: The outputs of the function are MaxOut_Uls_T_u16p0 and ThermLimSlowFilMax_Uls_T_f32.

Processing

None

Local Function #5

Function Name	ThermalLoadLimit	Type	Min	Max
Arguments Passed	MotVelCrf_MotRadPerSec_T_f32	float32	-1350	1350
	SlcTemp_DegCgrd_T_s15p0	sint16	-50	300
	MaxOut_Uls_T_u16p0	uint16	0	200
Return Value	ThermalLoadLmt_MotNwtMtr_T_f32	float32	0	8.8

Design Rationale

Name of local function matches with subsystem name from FDD

Processing

None

Local Function #6

Function Name	ThermalLimitStatus	Type	Min	Max
Arguments Passed	DutyCycThermProtnDi_Cnt_T_Logl	Boolean	0	1
	MaxOut_Uls_T_u16p0	uint16	0	200
	ThermMotTqLim_MotNwtMtr_T_f32	float32	0	8.8
	IvtrLoaMtgtnEna_Cnt_T_logl	boolean	FALSE	TRUE
	DualEcuFltMtgtnEna_Cnt_T_logl	boolean	FALSE	TRUE
Return Value	ThermRednFac_Uls_T_f32	float32	0	1

Design Rationale

Name of local function matches with subsystem name from FDD. Initializing ThermRednFac_Uls_T_f32 to 0.0 helps to avoid writing another statement in the if-conditional (optimized compared to FDD)

Local Function #7

Function Name	TherrmalLimitScaling	Type	Min	Max
Arguments Passed	DualEcuFltMtgtnEna_Cnt_T_logl	Boolean	0	1
	IvtrLoaMtgtnEna_Cnt_T_logl	Boolean	0	1
	AbsTempLimitSlew_MotNwtMtr_T_f32	float32	0	8.79
	DutyCycThermProtnDi_Cnt_T_Logl	Boolean	0	1
	ThermalLoadLmt_MotNwtMtr_T_f32	float32	0	8.8
	* ThermLoadDptLim_MotNwtMtr_T_f32	Float32	0	8.8
	* ThermTempDptLim_MotNwtMtr_T_f32	Float32	0	8.8
Return Value	ThermMotTqLim_MotNwtMtr_T_f32	float32	0	8.8

Design Rationale

Name of local function matches with subsystem name from FDD

The if-action subsystem blocks for calculation of LoadDptLim and TempDptLim are clubbed together and optimized since the condition for the subsystem execution was same.

Local Function #8

Function Name	UseInpLowr	Type	Min	Max
Arguments Passed	*TableX_Cnt_T_s16	sint16	FULL	FULL
	*TableY_Cnt_T_u16	uint16	FULL	FULL
	Size_Cnt_T_u16	uint16	1	20
	Input_Cnt_T_s16	sint16	FULL	FULL
Return Value	TableY_Cnt_T_u16[Idx_Cnt_T_u08]	uint16	FULL	FULL

Design Rationale

None.

Processing

None

Local Function #9

Function Name	Decoder	Type	Min	Max
Arguments Passed	MotAndThermProtnLoaMod_Cnt_T_u08	Uint8	0U	255U
Return Value	IvtrLoaMtgtnEna_Cnt_T_logl	boolean	FALSE	TRUE

Design Rationale

None.

Processing

Refer to the “Decoder” block of the Simulink model of the design.

GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions

None

Known Limitations with Design

In Init function CurrMeasLoaMtgtnEna and FetLoaMtgtnEna are terminated. In Periodic1 CurrMeasLoaMtgtnEna is terminated. These flags need not be computed at all.
MotAndThermProtnLoaMod input readable to init runnable also. It is need to update in Data Dictionary.

UNIT TEST CONSIDERATION

Function UseInpLowr to be tested only as called by the component; input and output ranges will not be reached.
Function UseInpLowr’s TableX must have strictly increasing elements.

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 02.00.00
3	Software Naming Conventions.doc	1.0
4	Software Design and Coding Standards.doc	2.1
5	FDD – SF009A_DutyCycThermProtn_Design	See Synergy sub project version