| Instructions for Functional Design Package Peer Review |
|
|
|
|
|
| PRE-MEETING |
|
|
| Function Owner | Confirm that requirements are reviewed and approved PRIOR to the FDP peer review |
| Function Owner | Start with latest version of the template for any "first reviews" - Continue to use existing temmplate for re-reviews |
| Function Owner | Provide the functional design package (changed documents) to the invited attendees 1-2 working days in advance of review |
| Function Owner | Notify the assigned peer reviewer and make sure they are prepared to do their function in the meeting |
| Function Owner | Identify necessary attendance and invite to meeting |
| Function Owner | Complete the "Author" column information for sections 1 through 3 prior to the review |
| Function Owner | Complete the attendance invitation list in section 5 |
| Function Owner | For Re-reviews only: Complete the column "remarks by author" to identify actions taken to address items found in earlier reviews. |
|
|
|
| DURING MEETING |
|
|
| Function Owner | Present document changes to the review team |
| Peer Reviewer | Capture attendance of the review |
| Peer Reviewer | Capture 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 Owner | Follow up on all "open" items. Update "Summary of Resolution" to indicate what was done or decided. |
| Function Owner | Schedule follow up review OR review open items with peer reviewer and obtain agreement to close |
| Peer Reviewer | Close change request in system and confirm all associated tasks are complete. Upload peer review checklist (this document) with any FDP updates |
| Technical Review Checklist - Template Version 01.00.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Product Name | Electric Power Steering | Electrical Arch. | 4 | Review Scope | Defect Type | Numbers |
|
|
|
|
| Yes | Closed | FR |
| Function Name | ES101A Diagnostic Manager | Version | 4.4.0 | EA4#7573 | Requirement | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| No | Rejected | FDD |
| Author | Samanth Kumaraswamy |
|
| Interface | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| NA | Open | Model |
|
| Effort | Design | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FMEA |
|
| Review Effort(Hrs.) | 1.00 | Standards | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| *.m File |
|
| Corr+Verf effort(Hrs.) | 0.50 | Documentation | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cal Process |
|
| Total Effort (Hrs.) | 1.50 | Others | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Checklist No. | Description of Check | Author:
This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist.
Author | Author:
This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist.
Reviewer | Author:
Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer.
Description of finding by reviewer | Author:
Defect type to be selected.
Defect Type | Author:
What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author | Author:
Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Section 1: TECHNICAL CHECK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.1 | Confirm that all signal inputs into the FDP (Functional Design Package) are contained within and exactly named as the "Available_Nexteer_Signals.m" states. | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.2 | Confirm any removed signal inputs from the design have been removed from the "Available_Nexteer_Signals.m" file. | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.3 | Confirm all signals and parameters (outputs, calibrations, constants, non-volatile memory) used in the *.m file and the design conform to the AutoSAR naming convention documentation. | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.4 | Confirm *.m file has been provided to the "Available_Signal_Names" Author. | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.5 | Confirm Electrical Systems interface map is updated to reflect the FDP (signal IO) | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.6 | Confirm that Static Register evaluation has been completed and updated for any register data that is written to. | NA | NA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.7 | Have calibration default values been reviewed for correctness? | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | Section 2: Safety CHECK | Author:
This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist.
Author | Author:
This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist.
Reviewer | Author:
Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer.
Description of finding by reviewer | Author:
Defect type to be selected.
Defect Type | Author:
What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author | Author:
Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.1 | Confirm that the functional DFMEA is up to date based on the design in the current package. | NA | NA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.2 | Confirm that Safety requirements (ASIL A - D) are referenced in the design documents. | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 | Section 3: Lessons Learned | Author:
This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist.
Author | Author:
This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist.
Reviewer | Author:
Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer.
Description of finding by reviewer | Author:
Defect type to be selected.
Defect Type | Author:
What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author | Author:
Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.01 | Have functions depending upon system state been reviewed for need to be executed at the 2ms rate to avoid system lag issues? | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.02 | Have all diagnostics (NTCs) been confirmed to show logic to invoke a diagnostic "PASS" for control of the status byte at the customer level. | NA | NA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.03 | Has the requirements traceability steps used the RMI steps as defined in the FDD authoring spec to generate the traceability report? | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.04 | Has the requirements traceability report been verified to only contain ONLY requirements from the FR. | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.05 | Confirm that all PIM that does NOT have an initialization value of zero is initialized in an INIT function. | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.06 | Confirm if NVM is used, the NVM is defined in structures | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.07 | If the function uses NVM, confirm that the m file uses the SetBlockStatus to indicate a write at powerdown | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.08 | Confirm NTCs are not set within an IRQ (not related to the typical periodic OS) | NA | NA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.09 | Confirm NTCs are not set or read in a periodic rate faster than 2 ms (ex. Motor Control Loop) | NA | NA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.10 | Constants check: Do all constants have the correct scope (local, global) and are they defined in the correct location (this FDD, ES/SF/AR999)? | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.11 | Confirm all calibrations are required (ie they cannot be constants) | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Section 4: Issues / Actions Identified | Document | Reference | Summary of resolution | Author:
Defect type to be selected.
Defect Type | Author:
What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author | Author:
Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4.1 | Update the return value of DebCntr in the ReadNtcInfoAndDebCntr function to a value 0 if the NTC is non-debounced. | FDD |
| Updated |
|
| Closed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4.2 | Rework the logic for PreFaild overflow | FDD |
| Added new check in IF condition to check if DebStep is greater than or equal to 32767 |
|
| Closed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 | Section 5: APPROVALS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Role | First Review | Date | Attendance | Approval? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Function Owner* | Samanth Kumaraswamy | 9/15/2016 | Yes | No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peer Reviewer* | Gerald McCann | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EPDT Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ES Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Software Lead | Spandana, Selva | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hardware Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Test Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Safety Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Role | Second Review (if required) | Date | Attendance | Approval? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Function Owner* | Samanth Kumaraswamy | 9/16/2016 | Yes | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peer Reviewer* | Gerald McCann | Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EPDT Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ES Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Software Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hardware Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Test Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Safety Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Role | Third Review (if required) | Date | Attendance | Approval? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Function Owner* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peer Reviewer* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EPDT Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ES Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Software Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hardware Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Test Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Safety Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Role | Fourth Review (if required) | Date | Attendance | Approval? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Function Owner* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peer Reviewer* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EPDT Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ES Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Software Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hardware Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Test Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Safety Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Role | Fifth Review | Date | Attendance | Approval? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Function Owner* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peer Reviewer* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EPDT Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ES Engineer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Software Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hardware Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Test Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Safety Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Role | Add more if necessary | Date | Attendance | Approval? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|