1 - GuardCfgAndDiagc Integration Manual

Integration Manual

For

GuardCfgAndDiagc

VERSION: 1

DATE: 02/16/16

Prepared By:

Software Group,

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA

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

Revision History

Sl. No.DescriptionAuthorVersionDate
1Initial versionAvinash James102/16/16

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 NvM Blocks 10

8 Compiler Settings 11

8.1 Preprocessor MACRO 11

8.2 Optimization Settings 11

9 Appendix 12

Abbrevations And Acronyms

AbbreviationDescription
DFDDesign functional diagram
MDDModule design Document
FDDFunctional Design Document

References

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

Sr. No.TitleVersion
1FDD – CM107A GuardCfgAndDiagcSee Synergy subproject version
2Software Naming ConventionsProcess 04.02.00
3Software Coding StandardsProcess 04.02.00

Dependencies

SWCs

ModuleRequired Feature
AR202A MicroCtrlrSuprtNxtrMcuSuprtLib functions and register definitions

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

GuardCfgAndDiagcInit1 - Non-RTE function so that guard protection can be initialized and enabled before the RTE is started

IpgInin - To be configured as a trusted function because it needs to run in supervisor mode

GuardCfgAndDiagcInit3 - Non-RTE function so that guard startup test can be run before the RTE is started

Configuration REQUIREMeNTS

Build Time Config

ModulesNotes
None

Configuration Files to be provided by Integration Project

Da Vinci Parameter Configuration Changes

ParameterNotesSWC

DaVinci Interrupt Configuration Changes

ISR NameVIM #Priority DependencyNotes

Manual Configuration Changes

ConstantNotesSWC
None

Integration DATAFLOW REQUIREMENTS

Required Global Data Inputs

None

Required Global Data Outputs

None

Specific Include Path present

Yes

Runnable Scheduling

This section specifies the required runnable scheduling.

InitScheduling Requirements
GuardCfgAndDiagcInit1Non-RTE Init, Called in Startup Sequence*Function call in Startup Sequence
GuardCfgAndDiagcInit2RTEOnce At Init (RTE)
GuardCfgAndDiagcInit3Non-RTE Init, Called in Startup Sequence*Function call in Startup Sequence

*Refer CM100A for the start up sequence

RunnableScheduling RequirementsTrigger

.

Memory Map REQUIREMENTS

Mapping

Memory SectionContentsNotes
CDD_GuardCfgAndDiagc_START_SEC_CODE

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

Usage

FeatureRAMROM

Table 1: ARM Cortex R4 Memory Usage

NvM Blocks

Compiler Settings

Preprocessor MACRO

None

Optimization Settings

None

Appendix

None

2 - GuardCfgAndDiagc Module Design Document

Module Design Document

For

GuardCfgAndDiagc

Mar 31 , 2016

Prepared For:

Software Engineering

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA

Prepared By:

Software Group,

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA
Change History

DescriptionAuthorVersionDate
Initial VersionAvinash James1.002/16/16
Updates for PBG Register Lock bits and Syncm inclusionAvinash James2.003/31/16


Table of Contents

1 Introduction 5

1.1 Purpose 5

1.2 Scope 5

2 GuardCfgAndDiagc & High-Level Description 6

3 Design details of software module 7

3.1 Graphical representation of GuardCfgAndDiagc 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: GuardCfgAndDiagcInit1 9

5.1.1.1 Design Rationale 9

5.1.1.2 Module Outputs 9

5.1.2 Init: GuardCfgAndDiagcInit2 9

5.1.2.1 Design Rationale 9

5.1.2.2 Module Outputs 9

5.1.3 Init: GuardCfgAndDiagcInit3 9

5.1.3.1 Design Rationale 9

5.1.3.2 Module Outputs 9

5.1.4 Per: None 9

5.2 Server Runables 9

5.3 Interrupt Functions 9

5.4 Module Internal (Local) Functions 10

5.4.1 ConfigureFilterN 10

5.4.1.1 Design Rationale 10

5.4.1.2 Processing 10

5.4.2 ChkForPBGErr 10

5.4.2.1 Design Rationale 10

5.4.2.2 Processing 10

5.4.3 ChkForECMErr 10

5.4.3.1 Design Rationale 10

5.4.3.2 Processing 11

5.4.4 Vrfy32BitPBGRegAcs 11

5.4.4.1 Design Rationale 11

5.4.4.2 Processing 11

5.4.5 Vrfy16BitPBGRegAcs 11

5.4.5.1 Design Rationale 11

5.4.5.2 Processing 11

5.4.6 Vrfy8BitPBGRegAcs 11

5.4.6.1 Design Rationale 11

5.4.6.2 Processing 11

5.5 GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions 12

5.5.1 GLOBAL Function #1 12

5.5.1.1 Design Rationale 12

5.5.1.2 Processing 12

6 Known Limitations with Design 13

7 UNIT TEST CONSIDERATION 14

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms 15

Appendix B Glossary 16

Appendix C References 17

Introduction

Purpose

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.

GuardCfgAndDiagc & High-Level Description

See FDD

Design details of software module

Graphical representation of GuardCfgAndDiagc

Data Flow Diagram

Component level DFD

See FDD

Function level DFD

See FDD

Constant Data Dictionary

Program (fixed) Constants

Embedded Constants

Local Constants

Constant NameResolutionUnitsValue
PBGPROTNCMN_CNT_U321uint320x0405FE1FU
PBGUSRMODENA_CNT_U321uint320x02000000U
PBGUSRMODDI_CNT_U321uint320x00000000U
PBGSPID321ENA_CNT_U321uint320x000001C0U
PBGSPID31ENA_CNT_U321uint320x00000140U
PBGSPID21ENA_CNT_U321uint320x000000C0U
PBGSPID1ENA_CNT_U321uint320x00000040U
PBGSETNOREADWRACS_CNT_U321uint320x405FE5CU
NROF8BITREG_CNT_U081uint8((uint8)0x09)
NROF32BITREG_CNT_U081uint8((uint8)0x02)
READERRBIT_CNT_U321uint32((uint32)1U<<6U)
WRERRBIT_CNT_U321uint32((uint32)1U<<7U)
CFGERRBIT_CNT_U321uint32((uint32)1U<<8U)
PBGERRBIT_CNT_U321uint32((uint32)1U<<9U)
ECMERRBIT_CNT_U321uint32((uint32)1U<<10U)
REGTYPE8BIT_CNT_U321uint32((uint32)0U<<4U)
REGTYPE16BIT_CNT_U321uint32((uint32)1U<<4U)
REGTYPE32BIT_CNT_U321uint32((uint32)2U<<4U)
PBGSTRTUPTESTNOFAILR_CNT_U321uint320x0U
PBGPROTNLOCKENA_CNT_U321uint320x80000000U

Software Component Implementation

Sub-Module Functions

Init: GuardCfgAndDiagcInit1

Design Rationale

Non-RTE function for Guard configuration initialization of PEG, IPG, and PBG so that guard protection can be initialized and enabled before the RTE is started

Module Outputs

Configuration registers for PEG, IPG, and PBG

Init: GuardCfgAndDiagcInit2

Design Rationale

RTE Empty function for purposes of memory mapping

See FDD for more.

Module Outputs

None

Init: GuardCfgAndDiagcInit3

Design Rationale

Non-RTE function for Start Up Initialization test of PBG of Group 3A

See FDD for more.

Module Outputs

None

Per: None

Server Runables

None

Interrupt Functions

None

Module Internal (Local) Functions

ConfigureFilterN

Function NameConfigureFilterNTypeMinMax
Arguments PassedPbgProtRegvolatile uint32*00xFFFFFFFF
Valuint3200xFFFFFFFF
PbgStrtUpTestFailStsUint32 *00xFFFFFFFF
Return ValueNone

Design Rationale

This local function sets the value Val to the register address PbgProtReg passed as the arguments and verifies the write operation was successful. If not a diagnostic is set.

Processing

Figure 4.5.3 from SAN ver 1.20

ChkForPBGErr

Function NameChkForPBGErrTypeMinMax
Arguments PassedPbgStrtUpTestFailStsUint32 *00xFFFFFFFF
Return ValueNone

Design Rationale

This local function checks PBG access violation error is captured. If not set diagnostic, clear the error and if the error doesn’t clear set diagnostic.

Processing

Figure 4.5.3 from SAN ver 1.20

ChkForECMErr

Function NameChkForECMErrTypeMinMax
Arguments PassedPbgStrtUpTestFailStsUint32 *00xFFFFFFFF
Return ValueNone

Design Rationale

This local function checkscwhether ECM captures the error sets diagnostic message and clears the ECM errors after the check else set diagnostic.

Processing

Refer FDD 4.5.3 Implementation

Vrfy32BitPBGRegAcs

Function NameVrfy32BitPBGRegAcsTypeMinMax
Arguments PassedPbgStrtUpTestFailStsUint32 *00xFFFFFFFF
Return ValueNone

Design Rationale

This is defined to reduce the path count and modularizes the check for the 32 bit Access registers alone.

Processing

Vrfy16BitPBGRegAcs

Function NameVrfy16BitPBGRegAcsTypeMinMax
Arguments PassedPbgStrtUpTestFailStsUint32 *00xFFFFFFFF
Return ValueNone

Design Rationale

This is defined to reduce the path count and modularizes the check for the 16 bit Access registers alone.

Processing

Vrfy8BitPBGRegAcs

Function NameVrfy8BitPBGRegAcsTypeMinMax
Arguments PassedPbgStrtUpTestFailStsUint32 *00xFFFFFFFF
Return ValueNone

Design Rationale

This is defined to reduce the path count and modularizes the check for the 8 bit Access registers alone.

Processing

GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions

GLOBAL Function #1

Function NameTypeMinMax
Arguments Passed
Return Value

Design Rationale

Processing

Known Limitations with Design

None

UNIT TEST CONSIDERATION

None

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation or AcronymDescription

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

TermDefinitionSource
MDDModule Design Document
DFDData Flow Diagram

References

Ref. #TitleVersion
1AUTOSAR Specification of Memory Mapping (Link:AUTOSAR_SWS_MemoryMapping.pdf)v1.3.0 R4.0 Rev 2
2MDD GuidelineEA4 01.00.01
3Software Naming Conventions.doc2.0
4Software Design and Coding Standards.doc2.1

3 - GuardCfgAndDiagc Peer Review Checklists


Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Src-GuardCfgAndDiagcNonRte
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. CM107A_GuardCfgAndDiagc_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. CM107A_GuardCfgAndDiagc_Impl_3.0.0

























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. Avinash James
Work CR ID:


EA4#4976





























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


YesPolySpace









































N/AIntegration Manual


N/ADavinci Files








































































Comments:






























































































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








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:

Avinash James


Review Date :

04/05/16
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 3: Src-GuardCfgAndDiagcNonRte






















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

























Source File Name:


CDD_GuardCfgAndDiagcNonRte.c

Source File Revision:


4
Header File Name:


CDD_GuardCfgAndDiagc.h

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. 1

























MDD Name:




Revision:
NA

























FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:




CM107A_GuardCfgAndDiagc_Design

Revision:
3.0.1


























Quality Check Items:



































Rationale is required for all answers of No









Working EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:















































for variable names







N/A
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.)




































All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring








N/A
Comments:

No Outputs






all outputs are initialized prior to being written





































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








N/A
Comments:

No requirements to trace






requirements tracability in the FDD





































All variables are declared at the function level.








N/A
Comments:

No variables





















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)








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:
















































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:










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







Yes
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







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-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:










null pointer if needed: [N70]





































Component outputs are limited to the legal range







N/A
Comments:

No outputs







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





































All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD







Yes
Comments:










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:

Avinash James


Review Date :

04/05/16
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 4: PolySpace






















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


























Source File Name:


CDD_GuardCfgAndDiagcNonRte.c











Source File Revision:


4

Source File Name:


CDD_GuardCfgAndDiagc.c











Source File Revision:


1

Source File Name:















Source File Revision:






























EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:








01.01.00













Poly Space version:


Windows User: eg. 2013b 2013B
Polyspace sub project version:




Windows User: eg. TL108a_PolyspaceSuprt_1.0.0 NA

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 AnalysisYes
Comments:











Compliance Guideline










fine

















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:























Rule 21.1 Exception but validated to be fine


















































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 :

04/05/16
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):