MicroCtrlrSuprt Peer Review Checklists

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
3rd Party Files
Integration Manual
Nexteer Source Code
MDD
PolySpace

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 1.0

19-Apr-17

Peer Review Summary Sheet

Synergy Project Name:

Windows User: Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed. This should match the component short name and the middle part of the Synergy project name MicroCtrlrSuprt

Revision / Baseline:

Windows User: Intended Use: Identify the implementation baseline name intended to be used for the changed component when changes are approved. AR202A_MicroCtrlrSuprt_Impl_2.2.0

Change Owner:

Windows User: Intended Use: Identify the developer who made the change(s) being reviewed Avinash James

Work CR ID:

Windows User: Intended Use: Identify the Implementation Work CR whose work is being reviewed (may be more than one) EA4#12708

3rd party delivery package identifier:

Intended Use: This is a reference to the identifier of the 3rd party delivery package(s) that the component was extracted/created from. Rationale: This will allow easier tracing back to 3rd party deliveries. N/A

Windows User: Identifiy which type of 3rd party component this is so as to provide appropriate review checklist sheets Component Type:

Windows User: General section for summarizing review comments or review notes. Review Checklist Summary:

Comments:

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:

Follows standard Nexteer developed

naming convention for 3rd Party Software Components

component naming conventions

Project contains necessary subprojects

Yes

Comments:

Requires dependencies for

included header files

Project contains the correct version of subprojects

Yes

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

subprojects were unchanged since they were not affected by the updates in 2.2.0

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:

Avinash James

Review Date :

11/20/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Lucas Wendling

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: 3rd Party Files

Peer Review Meeting Log (3rd Party File Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

(e.g. component_bswmd.arxml) Component "autosar" folder contains autosar module description file from 3rd party delivery package

N/A

Comments:

(e.g. component_preo.arxml) Component "autosar" folder contains any relevant preconfiguration files from 3rd party delivery package(s)

N/A

Comments:

If needed as in the case with Renesas MCAL (e.g. MCALcomponent_bswmd_rec.arxml taken from Vector delivery) Component "autosar" folder contains any needed supplemental autosar module description file(s)

N/A

Comments:

Component "doc" folder contains all documentation related to this component from 3rd party delivery package

N/A

Comments:

Modifications from delivery to be reviewed (e.g. path changes) Component "generate" folder contains all external generation files from 3rd party delivery package

N/A

Comments:

Component "include" and "src" folder contains exact component files from 3rd party delivery package

Yes

Comments:

Tool generated headers contained in

include folder for P1XC devices

Component "make" folder contains any makefiles included from 3rd party delivery package

N/A

Comments:

1) All source and headers of component should be referenced in .gpj 2) Compiler settings may need to be tailored to source component (e.g. Renesas MCAL vs Vector BSWs) Component "tools" folder contains GHS project file with appropriate files referenced with appropriate compiler settings

Yes

Comments:

Should delete old existing files/directories from integration project and copy new ones into integration project May also contain logic for integrator user interaction if required. (e.g. selection of micro variant on MCAL) Component "tools" folder contains Integrate.bat with appropriate logic in it for integration into project

N/A

Comments:

Headers only in component, so no need

of integration batch file

For external generation and internal behavior definition for use with Vector Davinci tools. Typically only desired/needed for non-Vector developed components. This file should be copied as part of Integrate.bat. Components optionally contains settings xml file with appropriate contents

N/A

Comments:

Headers only in component, so no need

of settings xml file

General Notes / Comments:

.gpj file update needed for the new header (SEG_RegDefns.h) - Done 11/20/2017

Change Owner:

Avinash James

Review Date :

11/20/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Lucas Wendling

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 4: Integration Manual

Peer Review Meeting Log (Integration Manual Review)

Integration Manual Name:

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

Integration Manual Revision:

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

Change Owner:

Lucas Wendling

Review Date :

07/20/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 5: Nexteer Source Code

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

N/A

Source File Revision:

Windows User: 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) N/A

Header File Name:

NxtrMcuSuprtLib.h (P1XC version)

Header File Revision:

Windows User: 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) 1

MDD Name:

MicroCtrlrSuprt Module Design Document.docx

Revision:

Windows User: 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) 1

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:

Windows User: Intended Use: list version/revision of latest released EA4 Software Naming Conventions document. (Listing version of the EA4 Common Naming Conventions is not needed since it is called out by the Software Naming Conventions document) Version:

for variable names

Yes

Comments:

for constant names

N/A

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

Verified no possibility of uninitialized variables being

N/A

Comments:

written to component outputs or IRVs

All variables are declared at the function level.

N/A

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:

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

Work CR number

Code accurately implements MDD

Yes

Comments:

Verified no Compiler Errors or Warnings

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

Yes

Comments:

(and verified for all possible combinations of any

conditionally compiled code)

Component.h is included

N/A

Comments:

All 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:

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 execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

Comments:

There are intentional loop forever

finite loop iterations: [N63]

loops in this component after issuing software reset

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-unsiged 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

Yes

Comments:

DET mechanism will check for

null pointer if needed: [N70]

bad pointers in this component

Component outputs are limited to the legal range

N/A

Comments:

No Outputs

defined in the design (MDD) : [N53]

All code is mapped with MDD (all MDD

Yes

Comments:

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

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

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

General Notes / Comments:

Note only P1XC version of header was reviewed under this peer review, as no changes were done to the P1M version.

Change Owner:

Lucas Wendling

Review Date :

07/20/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 6: MDD

Peer Review Meeting Log (MDD Review)

MDD Name:

MicroCtrlrSuprt Module Design Document.docx

MDD Revision:

Source File Name:

NxtrMcuSuprtLib.h (P1M version)

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

NxtrMcuSuprtLib.h (P1XC version)

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

N/A

Comments:

Initial Version

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

Yes

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 Unit Test Considerations have been described

Yes

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Lucas Wendling

Review Date :

07/20/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 7: PolySpace

Peer Review Meeting Log (PolySpace Review)

Source File Name:

NxtrMcuSuprtLib.h (P1M version)

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

NxtrMcuSuprtLib.h (P1XC version)

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:

01.02.00

Poly Space version:

Windows User: eg. 2013b 2013b

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 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

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:

Red polyspace errors for inifinite loops. This is acceptable since it is intended to have these after attempting to issue a software reset.

Change Owner:

Lucas Wendling

Review Date :

07/20/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Last modified October 12, 2025: Initial commit (ddf2e20)