1 - Component Design

Component Design

Component Documentation

1.1 - NM100A_MotVelCtrl_PeerReview_Design

Nexteer_Template_V1.0

Overview

Peer Review Instructions
Technical Review Checklist
Template Change Log


Sheet 1: Peer Review Instructions

Instructions for Functional Design Package Peer Review




PRE-MEETING


Function OwnerConfirm that requirements are reviewed and approved PRIOR to the FDP peer review

Function OwnerStart with latest version of the template for any "first reviews" - Continue to use existing temmplate for re-reviews

Function OwnerProvide the functional design package (changed documents) to the invited attendees 1-2 working days in advance of review

Function OwnerNotify the assigned peer reviewer and make sure they are prepared to do their function in the meeting

Function OwnerIdentify necessary attendance and invite to meeting

Function OwnerComplete the "Author" column information for sections 1 through 3 prior to the review

Function OwnerComplete the attendance invitation list in section 5

Function OwnerFor Re-reviews only: Complete the column "remarks by author" to identify actions taken to address items found in earlier reviews.



DURING MEETING


Function OwnerPresent document changes to the review team

Peer ReviewerCapture attendance of the review

Peer ReviewerCapture actions and issues in section 4. Identify issue summary, Document type, Reference (Requirement ID, section number, etc), Defect Type and indicate status as "OPEN"



POST MEETING


Function OwnerFollow up on all "open" items. Update "Summary of Resolution" to indicate what was done or decided.

Function OwnerSchedule follow up review OR review open items with peer reviewer and obtain agreement to close

Peer ReviewerClose change request in system and confirm all associated tasks are complete. Upload peer review checklist (this document) with any FDP updates

Sheet 2: Technical Review Checklist

Technical Review Checklist - Template Version 02.00.00







Product NameElectric Power SteeringElectrical Arch.4Review ScopeDefect TypeNumbers




YesClosedFR
Function IDNM100A_MotVelCtrl

1.Increased PIM ranges for PrevAntiWdupCmd,PrevDerivtvOutp and PrevIntgtrInp. 2. Saturation block for Anti-windup command and Derivative command.Requirement1




NoRejectedFDD
Long NameMotor Velocity Control

Interface0




NAOpenModel
Version that you started from. NOT the version you hope to release. If this will be v1.0.0, enter NA. Starting Baseline1.3.0EffortDesign2






FMEA
AuthorChang WangReview Effort(Hrs.)
Standards0






*.m File


Corr+Verf effort(Hrs.)
Documentation4






Cal Process


Total Effort (Hrs.)0.00Others0













Total7







Checklist No.Description of CheckAuthor: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. AuthorAuthor: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. ReviewerAuthor: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewerAuthor: Defect type to be selected. Defect TypeAuthor: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By AuthorAuthor: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status







1Section 1: Data Dictionary














Is Filename of Data Dictionary in correct format?YesYes












Is the FDD.Version property correctly updated?YesYes












Is the Data Dictionary Verification report error free?YesYes












Does FDD Long Name, Short Name, and Description match requirements?YesYes












Are all runnables defined?YesYes












Do runnables have the correct time step?YesYes












Do server runnables correctly define arguments?YesYes












Are all clients defined?YesYes












Do client definitions match the corresponding server runnable?YesYes












Does name and metadata of every signal match its corresponding interface signal?YesYes












Do output signal ranges match requirements (check DOOR min/max attributes too)?YesYes












Are calibration tables named correctly (e.g. AssiX and AssiY)?YesYes












Do all calibrations have correct values for all metadata?YesYes












Is NVM defined in the appropriate number of blocks?NANA












Are constants defined with proper scope (local vs global)?YesYes












Are all dependent constants and calibrations included in one file?YesYes












Does FDD.DesignASIL match requirements?YesYes



























2Section 2: ModelAuthor: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. AuthorAuthor: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. ReviewerAuthor: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewerAuthor: Defect type to be selected. Defect TypeAuthor: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By AuthorAuthor: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status








Is filename of model in correct format?YesYes












Is Top level of model annotated with Requirements Baseline?YesYes












Is the Top level of the model annotated with Tool Dependencies?YesYes












Is Top level of model annotated with Change Log or History?YesYes












Does the Component shortname match data dictionary FDD metadata?YesYes












Is the 2nd level of model free from subsystems that are not Function-Call Subsystems?YesYes












Is the 2nd level of model free from arithmetic and logic operations?YesYes












Are the Runnable trigger signals named as "call_<Runnable>"?YesYes












Does 2nd level of model have a properly updated annotation with name, description, and intended baseline number?YesYes












Are all data flow layers free of Function-Call Subsystems and Memory Store blocks?YesYes












Does the Model have the confidentiality and copyright information inside all its Subsystems?YesYes












Are all the Memory Store blocks for PIM and Display Variables located on the 2nd level of model?YesYes












Do all Memory Store blocks for PIM and Display Variables have the "Data store name must resolve to Simulink signal object" setting checked to true?YesYes












Is each diagnostic (NTC) capable of being set to "PASS"?NANA












Does non-zero intialization of PIM occur in the function's Init runnable?YesYes












Does design properly include Set Ram Block Status when NVM RAM values change?NANA












Does model include appropriate logic for dealing with missing or corrupted NVM data?NANA












Does model execute without errors/warnings after loading NxtrMBDConfig configuration set?YesYes



























3Section 3: Requirements LinkingAuthor: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. AuthorAuthor: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. ReviewerAuthor: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewerAuthor: Defect type to be selected. Defect TypeAuthor: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By AuthorAuthor: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status








Are all requirements links of the format <FDDNumber>_<ObjectID>?YesYes












Does requirements HTML report reference only the DOORS module of this component for all links in the design?YesYes












Are linked blocks linked to the correct requirements(s)? (watch for problems due to copy/pasted blocks)YesYes












Is the list of unlinked blocks acceptable?YesYes



























4Section 4: Model AdvisorAuthor: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. AuthorAuthor: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. ReviewerAuthor: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewerAuthor: Defect type to be selected. Defect TypeAuthor: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By AuthorAuthor: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status








Was Model Advisor run with the correct configuration settings?YesYes












Is the Model Advisor rerport free from "Fails".YesYes












Are Model Advisor report "Warnings" acceptable?YesYes



























5Section 5: Delivery PackageAuthor: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. AuthorAuthor: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. ReviewerAuthor: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewerAuthor: Defect type to be selected. Defect TypeAuthor: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By AuthorAuthor: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status








Does Design folder contain only the model, data dictionary, and (optionally) a simulation setup script?YesYes












Does Doc folder contain a zipped HTML webview model?YesYes












Was webview model created without requirements highlighted?YesYes












Does Reports folder contain only the data dictionary verification report, zipped Model Advisor report, and zipped requirements traceability report?YesYes



























4Section 6: Other Issus/Actions IdentifiedDocumentReferenceSummary of resolutionAuthor: Defect type to be selected. Defect TypeAuthor: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By AuthorAuthor: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status







4.1














4.2














4.3














4.4














4.5














4.6














4.7














4.8














4.9














4.10














4.11














4.12














4.13














4.14














4.15














4.16














4.17














4.18














4.19














4.20














4.21














4.22














4.23














4.24














4.25














5Section 7: APPROVALS













RoleFirst ReviewDateAttendanceApproval?










Function Owner*Chang Wang (Author)6/24/2016Yes











Peer Reviewer*Sudeep ShankarYesYes










Safety<Name - if invited>












Software<Name - if invited>












ESG / Systems<Name - if invited>












EPDT / CSE<Name - if invited>












Hardware<Name - if invited>












Test<Name - if invited>












RoleSecond Review (if required)DateAttendanceApproval?










Function Owner*<Name - if invited>













Peer Reviewer*<Name - if invited>












Safety<Name - if invited>












Software<Name - if invited>












ESG / Systems<Name - if invited>












EPDT / CSE<Name - if invited>












Hardware<Name - if invited>












Test<Name - if invited>












RoleThird Review (if required)DateAttendanceApproval?










Function Owner*<Name - if invited>













Peer Reviewer*<Name - if invited>












Safety<Name - if invited>












Software<Name - if invited>












ESG / Systems<Name - if invited>












EPDT / CSE<Name - if invited>












Hardware<Name - if invited>












Test<Name - if invited>












RoleFourth Review (if required)DateAttendanceApproval?










Function Owner*<Name - if invited>













Peer Reviewer*<Name - if invited>












Safety<Name - if invited>












Software<Name - if invited>












ESG / Systems<Name - if invited>












EPDT / CSE<Name - if invited>












Hardware<Name - if invited>












Test<Name - if invited>












RoleAdd more if necessaryDateAttendanceApproval?










































P.S.:Yes indicates adherence














No indicates non-adherence, reviewer shall provide suitable comments at the end of this document for each point.














NA indicates not applicable














Sheet 3: Template Change Log

RevChangeAuthor
01.00.05Added lesson learned #3.5MDK
01.00.06Added lesson learned #3.6, 3.7 - Structure and writing of NVM in mfiles and models.MDK
02.00.00Combined ESG and Systems into one, compatible with Data_Management 2.13.0 of CreateDD and VerifyDD.K. Derry
02.01.00Added: Does FDD.DesignASIL match requirements?
Added: Was webview model created without requirements highlighted?
Removed: Redundant row in Data Dictionary section.
Formatting: Column C now consistently center-justified.
K. Derry














































































2 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

2.1 - 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 - 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

2.3 - 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.

2.4 - CmnMfgSrv_PeerReviewChecklist


Overview

Summary Sheet
Davinci Files
Source Code
QAC


Sheet 1: Summary Sheet
























Rev 6.028-Oct-14

Peer Review Summary Sheet



























Component 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
Component Revision:


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. 0.16.0





























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
Change Request ID:


EA4#5582





























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:
































MDD


XSource Code



Data Dictionary


XQAC




































Integration Manual


XDavinci Files








































































Comments:

Did not run Polyspace nor create MDDs or Integration Manual. All of these updates are planned for the future.



























































































General Guidelines:
- The reviews shall be performed over the portions of the component that were modified as a result of the Change Request. (Note: If this peer review form was not
completed for pervious versions of this component, the Change Owner should review the entire component and complete the checklist in its entirety prior and check
the form into Syngery. This may be done prior to reviewing the modifications for this Change Result)
- The Change Owner shall responsible for completing the entire checklist (Pre and Group review items) prior holding the initial group review.
- New components should include FDD Owner and Intergator as apart of the Group Review Board (Source Code, Integration Manual, and Davinci Files)
- Select "Yes" and add "N/A" to the comments for checklist items that are not applicable for this change















Sheet 2: Davinci Files






















Rev 6.028-Oct-14
Peer Review Meeting Log (Davinci Review)


























Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No









Pre-review checklist for change ownersDCF: Latest StdDef imported








X
Comments:










































DCF: Only StdDef Port types are used (if not








X
Comments:




add justification)




































DCF: All unused definitions removed








X

Comments:










































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








X
Comments:

N/A







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












































*Cfg.h.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator generates








X
Comments:

N/A







the configuration header(s) file correctly




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









































Group-review for review boardAll changed files have been compared against previous








X
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.


































DCF:Automated validation check is performed








X
Comments:

























































DCF: Inputs/Outputs match names from requirements








X
Comments:

























































DCF: Inputs/Outputs configuration paremeters








X
Comments:










reviewedkzshz2: Intended Use: All changed inputs have been reviewed to ensure configuration parameters (i.e. Buffered vs Direct read/writes) are correct. This includes signal grouping when signal consistency is required by the FDD













































DCF: Sender/Reciever Ports type and default values








X
Comments:










match their corresponding ports (internal/external)






kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify if all the Sender/Reciever ports are compatibale with there connecting ports. Rationale: This will help to avoid errors when this component is being integrated into a project.






































DCF: Ports prototype and default values








X
Comments:










match their corresponding ports (internal/external)






kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify if all the Server/Client ports are compatibale with there connecting ports. Rationale: This will help to avoid errors when this component is being integrated into a project.






































DCF: Server runnable variables are using direct








X
Comments:

N/A







read/writes













































DCF: Runnable calling frequencies match requirements








X
Comments:

No formal requirements
























































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 :

05/06/16
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kevin Smith


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 3: Source Code






















Rev 6.028-Oct-14
Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

























Source File Name:




kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which .asm, .c, or .h file is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this sheet is not attached to the wrong design review form. *.c
Source 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. N/A

























Module Design Document Name:




kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the MDD this source file was written against. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and MDD N/A
MDD Revision:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the MDD this source file was written against. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and MDD N/A

























Data Dictionary Revision:




kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the Data Dictionary was referenced for ranges during the source file review. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and DD N/A




FDD/SER/CMS























and Revision:


nz63rn: Intended Use: Identify which version of which FDD/CMS/SER this source file was written against. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and FDD/CMS/SER N/A

Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No









Pre-review checklist for change ownersSoftware Naming Convention V1.2 followed:








































for variable names







X
Comments:

















































for constant names







X
Comments:

N/A














































for function names







X
Comments:

















































for other names (component, memory







X
Comments:










mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)






































All buffered outputs written in every path, i.e. no








X
Comments:










possibility of an uninitialized value being written






































Group-review Checklist (review board)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.


X
Comments:



and Version Control version in file comment block





































Change log contains detailed description of changes








X
Comments:



and CR number





































Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)








X
Comments:

N/A







































No Compiler Errors or Warnings verified


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.





X
Comments:
















































FDD test points exist as display variables: declared








X
Comments:

N/A







static volatile, written once and never used, names













match the FDD













































Software Design and Coding Standards V2.0 followed:








































Code comments are clear, correct, and adequate







X
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







X
Comments:











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







































Function comment blocks are per standards and







X
Comments:











contain correct information: [N43]







































Code formatting (indentation, placement of







X
Comments:











braces, etc.) is per standards: [N5], [N55], [N56],














[N57], [N58], [N59]
















































Embedded constants used per standards; no







X
Comments:











"magic numbers": [N12]







































All variables and constants defined at module







X
Comments:











level are included in appropriate MemMap














section: [N25] and Naming Conventions
















































All execution-order-dependent code can be







X
Comments:











recognized by the compiler: [N80]







































No possibility of a non-terminating loop: [N63]







X
Comments:




















































No possibility of divide by zero: [N65]







X
Comments:




















































All integer division and modulus operations







X
Comments:

N/A








handle negative numbers correctly: [N76]







































All typecasting and fixed point arithmetic,







X
Comments:

N/A








including all use of fixed point macros and














timer functions, is correct and has no possibility























of unintended overflow or underflow: [N66]
















































No possibility of converting a negative floating







X
Comments:

N/A








point value to an unsigned type: [N67]







































All conversions between signed and unsigned







X
Comments:

N/A








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







































No possibility of dereferencing a null







X
Comments:











pointer: [N70]







































Global outputs (RTE and Non-RTE) Initialized:







X
Comments:











[N24]







































Module outputs are limited to the legal range







X
Comments:











defined in the FDD Data dictionary: [N53]







































All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD







X
Comments:











subfunctions and/or model blocks identified














with code comments; all code corresponds to























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
















































Struct types used for NvM have







X
Comments:

N/A








elements declared in decreasing order by size














and are not nested or used in arrays: [N84], [N85]
















































No violations of other coding standard rules







X
Comments:











identified during review
























































































General Notes / Comments:























Updates made to SrvFD70 (3), SrvFDF4 (3), SrvFDF5 (3), SrvFE88 (1), SrvFE89 (1), SrvFE8A (1), SrvFE8B (1), SrvFEA2 (2)












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 :

05/06/16
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kevin Smith


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 4: QAC






















Rev 6.028-Oct-14
Peer Review Meeting Log (QAC Review)


























Module Name:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which .c file is being analyzed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this sheet is not attached to the wrong design review form. CmnMfgSrv

Source File Revision:


N/A

Module
1of1


























Compliance Guidelines Version:




Working EA4 guideline









































kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify specific changes in results (new violation present, previous violation corrected, etc.). Changes to the version of the tool or the way the results were gathered should be described here also. This should be filled out prior to the review by the change owner. Rationale: Gives reviewers an what needs to be focused on. Forces the change owner to compare with previous results to catch any differences that may otherwise go unoticed Brief Summary of Changes (In Results or Tool):


































































Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No









Pre-review
checklist for change owners
QAC version is correct and did not change (List version)







kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the QAC Subproject was used and if any of the personalities may have changed. Rationale: Will help ensure this is factored into evaluating the results
X
Comments:

TL100A_QACSuprt_1.2.0







































Contract Folder's header files are appropriate





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.


X
Comments:












































Group-review Checklist (review board)100% Compliance to the MISRA Compliance GuidelinesX
Comments:










































Cyclomatic complexity and Static path count ok per






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

X
Comments:




Design and Coding Standards rule [N47]






































General Notes / Comments:























QAC Run against ALL source files - one tab used to document all files.


































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 :

03/24/16
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Sankardu Varadapureddi


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































3 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

4 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

4.1 - MotVelCtrl_IntegrationManual

Integration Manual

For

MotVelCtrl

VERSION: 1.0

DATE: 16-Feb-2016

Prepared By:

Sankardu Varadapureddi,

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 versionSankardu Varadapureddi1.016-Feb-2016

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

References

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

Sr. No.TitleVersion
1FDD : NM100A_ MotVelCtrl_DesignSee Synergy sub project version
2Software Naming Conventions2.0
3Software Design and Coding Standards2.1
4Integration Manual Template1.3

Dependencies

SWCs

ModuleRequired Feature
None

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

None

Configuration REQUIREMeNTS

Build Time Config

ModulesNotes
None

Configuration Files to be provided by Integration Project

None

Da Vinci Parameter Configuration Changes

ParameterNotesSWC
None

DaVinci Interrupt Configuration Changes

ISR NameVIM #Priority DependencyNotes
None

Manual Configuration Changes

ConstantNotesSWC
None

Integration DATAFLOW REQUIREMENTS

Required Global Data Inputs

Refer DataDict.m file

Required Global Data Outputs

Refer DataDict.m file

Specific Include Path present

No

Runnable Scheduling

This section specifies the required runnable scheduling.

InitScheduling RequirementsTrigger
MotVelCtrlInit1NoneRTE (Init)
RunnableScheduling RequirementsTrigger
MotVelCtrlPer1NoneRTE (2ms)
Server RunnableScheduling RequirementsTrigger
GetCtrlPrm_OperNoneOn event
SetCtrlPrm_OperNoneOn event
StopCtrl_OperNoneOn event
StrtCtrl_OperNoneOn event

Memory Map REQUIREMENTS

Mapping

Memory SectionContentsNotes
None

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

Usage

FeatureRAMROM
None

Table 1: ARM Cortex R4 Memory Usage

NvM Blocks

None

Compiler Settings

Preprocessor MACRO

None.

Optimization Settings

None.

Appendix

None

4.2 - MotVelCtrl_MDD

Module Design Document

For

MotVelCtrl

May 4, 2016

Prepared For:

Software Engineering

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA

Prepared By:

Nick Saxton,

Nexteer Automotive,

Saginaw, MI, USA
Change History

DescriptionAuthorVersionDate
Initial VersionSankardu Varadapureddi117-Feb-2016
Input name changeNick Saxton204-May-2016


Table of Contents

1 Introduction 5

1.1 Purpose 5

1.2 Scope 5

2 MotVelCtrl High-Level Description 6

3 Design details of software module 7

3.1 Graphical representation of MotVelCtrl 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: MotVelCtrlInit1 9

5.1.1.1 Design Rationale 9

5.1.1.2 Module Outputs 9

5.1.2 Per: MotVelCtrlPer1 9

5.1.2.1 Design Rationale 9

5.1.2.2 Store Module Inputs to Local copies 9

5.1.2.3 (Processing of function)……… 9

5.1.2.4 Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs 9

5.2 Server Runables 9

5.2.1 GetCtrlPrm_Oper 9

5.2.1.1 Design Rationale 9

5.2.1.2 (Processing of function)……… 9

5.2.2 SetCtrlPrm_Oper 9

5.2.2.1 Design Rationale 9

5.2.2.2 (Processing of function)……… 9

5.2.3 StopCtrl_Oper 10

5.2.3.1 Design Rationale 10

5.2.3.2 (Processing of function)……… 10

5.2.4 StrtCtrl_Oper 10

5.2.4.1 Design Rationale 10

5.2.4.2 (Processing of function)……… 10

5.3 Interrupt Functions 10

5.4 Module Internal (Local) Functions 10

5.4.1 Local Function #1 10

5.4.1.1 Description 10

5.5 GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions 11

6 Known Limitations with Design 12

7 UNIT TEST CONSIDERATION 13

Appendix A Abbreviations and Acronyms 14

Appendix B Glossary 15

Appendix C References 16

Introduction

Purpose

Scope

MotVelCtrl High-Level Description

Refer to FDD

Design details of software module

Graphical representation of MotVelCtrl

Data Flow Diagram

Refer FDD

Component level DFD

Function level DFD

Constant Data Dictionary

Program (fixed) Constants

Embedded Constants

Constant NameResolutionUnitsValue
ONEOVERTWOMPLR_ULS_F321Cnt0.5

For other constants, refer .m file.

Local Constants

Software Component Implementation

Sub-Module Functions

Init: MotVelCtrlInit1

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

Module Outputs

Refer FDD

Per: MotVelCtrlPer1

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

Store Module Inputs to Local copies

Refer FDD

(Processing of function)………

Refer FDD

Store Local copy of outputs into Module Outputs

Refer FDD

Server Runables

GetCtrlPrm_Oper

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

(Processing of function)………

Refer FDD

SetCtrlPrm_Oper

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

(Processing of function)………

Refer FDD

StopCtrl_Oper

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

(Processing of function)………

Refer FDD

StrtCtrl_Oper

Design Rationale

Refer FDD

(Processing of function)………

Refer FDD

Interrupt Functions

None

Module Internal (Local) Functions

Local Function #1

Function NameFPIDControlTypeMinMax
Arguments PassedMotVelTarSlewed_MotRadPerSec_T_f32float32- 183500183500
MotVelCrf_MotRadPerSec_T_f32float32-13501350
Return ValuePIDCmdLimid_MotNwtMtr_T_f32float32-8.88.8

Description

Blocks "F_PID Control_1" , "F_PID Control_2" and "F_PID Control_3" are of same functionality in the FDD. This sub function corresponds to those blocks implementation.

GLOBAL Function/Macro Definitions

None

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
5FDD : NM100A_ MotVelCtrl_DesignSee Synergy sub project version

4.3 - MotVelCtrl_Review


Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
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. NM100A_MotVelCtrl_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. NM100A_MotVelCtrl_Impl_1.2.0

























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. Nick Saxton
Work CR ID:


EA4#6423





























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:
































MDD


YesSource Code


YesPolySpace









































Integration Manual



Davinci Files








































































Comments:

Only reviewed changes



























































































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:

Nick Saxton


Review Date :

07/11/16
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Krishna Anne


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):










































































Sheet 3: Source Code






















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

























Source File Name:


MotVelCtrl.c

Source File Revision:


3
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.

























MDD Name:

MotVelCtrl_MDD.docx

Revision:
2

























FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:




NM100A_MotVelCtrl_Design

Revision:
1.4.0


























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







N/A
Comments:

















































for other names (component, memory







N/A
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:









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)








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








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: 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







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







Yes
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







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







N/A
Comments:










null pointer if needed: [N70]





































Component outputs are limited to the legal range







Yes
Comments:










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: List Anomaly or CR numbers









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:

Nick Saxton


Review Date :

07/11/16
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Krishna Anne


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:


MotVelCtrl.cSource File Revision:


3

Source File Name:















Source File Revision:





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 TL108A_PolyspaceSuprt_1.0.0

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 TL100A_QACSuprt_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





























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:



























































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:

Nick Saxton


Review Date :

07/11/16
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Krishna Anne


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































5 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

6 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

7 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation