NvMProxy_Design_Review

Overview

Summary Sheet
Davinci Files
Source Code
MDD
QAC
Integration Manual

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet
























Rev 1.023-Jul-13

Peer Review Summary Sheet



























Component Name:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request. NvMProxy
Component Revision:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request. FDD22_001.6





























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. Lucas Wendling
Change Request ID:


10844





























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:































XMDD


XSource Code



Data Dictionary


XQAC



































XIntegration Manual


XDavinci Files








































































Comments:

































































Sheet 2: Davinci Files






















Rev 1.023-Jul-13
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:










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:










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:

No I/O, service component.






















































DCF: Inputs/Outputs configuration paremeters








X
Comments:

No I/O, service component.







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:

No I/O, service component.







macth 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:

No I/O, service component.







macth 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:

No I/O, service component.







read/writes













































DCF: Runnable calling frequencies match requirements








X
Comments:

No Runnables, service component.
























































General Notes / Comments:



























































kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify who where 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. Group Review Level: There are four Design Review States that a document may have as follows: DR1 – Un-reviewed document. The DR1 reviews usually require larger, cross functional review teams (i.e. Management, Hardware Engineering, etc.) It is usually advisable, but not required to include outside representation as well such as system engineers. It is up to the document owner to decide on the scope of the review, however, the peer group can decide that a re-review with additional team member is required. DR2 – The Document has previously passed through the peer review process, but requires design changes significant enough to require another group peer review. DR3 – The Document has passed group peer review but needs minor corrections that can be re-reviewed with the Lead Peer Reviewer. DR4 – The document has passed all peer reviews and is ready for release. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Lucas Wendling
Review Date :

12/03/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kevin Smith

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 3: Source Code






















Rev 1.023-Jul-13
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. Cd_NvMProxy.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. 7

























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 NvMProxy_MDD_docx
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 4

































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

































Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No










Telelogic Synergy version matches header





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:













































Change log contains detailed description of changes








X
Comments:













































Code compared vs requirements (Document or Model)







kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify if previous version was compared and only the expected change(s) was present. Rationale: This is helpful in identifying unapproved (intended or mistaken) changes.
X
Comments:













































Analysis performed for Divide by zero




kzshz2: Intended Use: To confirm this defensive coding strategy has been taken into consideration Rationale: Necessary since currently there is no place this is documented



X
Comments:

No divide operations










































Naming Convention and Standard followed





kzshz2: Intended Use: To confirm the appropriate variable name formats have been used. Rationale: This is needed to confirm compliance until the QAC tool is updated to automate this check.


X
Comments:



















































Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized








X
Comments:

No global outputs
















































No Compiler Errors verified


kzshz2: Intended Use: To confirm the appropriate variable name formats have been used. Rationale: This is needed to ensure there will be no errors discovered at the time of integration. A Sandox project may be required to confirm there are no errors until the QAC tool has been evaultated to determine if it can automate this check.





X
Comments:



















































All buffered outputs are written in every path








X
Comments:

No outputs
















































Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed








X
Comments:



















































Function prototype and passed parameters are








X
Comments:











consistent






































General Notes / Comments:



























































kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify who where 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. Group Review Level: There are four Design Review States that a document may have as follows: DR1 – Un-reviewed document. The DR1 reviews usually require larger, cross functional review teams (i.e. Management, Hardware Engineering, etc.) It is usually advisable, but not required to include outside representation as well such as system engineers. It is up to the document owner to decide on the scope of the review, however, the peer group can decide that a re-review with additional team member is required. DR2 – The Document has previously passed through the peer review process, but requires design changes significant enough to require another group peer review. DR3 – The Document has passed group peer review but needs minor corrections that can be re-reviewed with the Lead Peer Reviewer. DR4 – The document has passed all peer reviews and is ready for release. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Lucas Wendling
Review Date :

12/03/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kevin Smith

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 4: MDD






















Rev 1.023-Jul-13
Peer Review Meeting Log (MDD Review)






























Module Name:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which file is has been reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this sheet is not attached to the wrong design review form. NvMProxy_MDD.docx


Modulekzshz2: Intended Use: Identify how many source files are being reviewed and trace it to the appropriate MDD. Rationale: Required for traceability between source code and MDD
1of1





























MDD Revision:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the MDD has been reviewed. Rationale: Required for traceability between the MDD and review. Auditors will likely require this. 4


Source File Revision:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the source file was this MDD written for. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and MDD 7

Data Dictionary Revision:



kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the Data Dictionary was referenced for ranges during the review. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and DD. Note: Maybe this should be moved to the Summary sheet since there is only one Data Dictionary Version for all changes N/A



















































Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No










Telelogic Synergy version matches header








X
Comments:













































Change log contains detailed description of changes








X
Comments:













































Changes Highlighted (for Unit Tester)








X
Comments:













































High-level Diagrams have been reviewed (Section 2)








X
Comments:



















































All Design Exceptions and Limitations are listed








X
Comments:



















































Design Rationale understood captured appropriately








X
Comments:



















































General Notes / Comments:



























































kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify who where 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. Group Review Level: There are four Design Review States that a document may have as follows: DR1 – Un-reviewed document. The DR1 reviews usually require larger, cross functional review teams (i.e. Management, Hardware Engineering, etc.) It is usually advisable, but not required to include outside representation as well such as system engineers. It is up to the document owner to decide on the scope of the review, however, the peer group can decide that a re-review with additional team member is required. DR2 – The Document has previously passed through the peer review process, but requires design changes significant enough to require another group peer review. DR3 – The Document has passed group peer review but needs minor corrections that can be re-reviewed with the Lead Peer Reviewer. DR4 – The document has passed all peer reviews and is ready for release. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Lucas Wendling
Review Date :

12/03/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kevin Smith

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 5: QAC






















Rev 1.023-Jul-13
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. Cd_NvMProxy.c

Source File Revision:


7

Module
1of1


























Compliance Document Version:




N/A

QAC Tool Version:


8.1.1

































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










All Results reviewed








X
Comments:













































QAC version is correct and did not change (List version)








X
Comments:













































Contract Folder's header files are appropriate








X
Comments:













































100% Compliance to the MISRA Compliance Document








X
Comments:













































General Notes / Comments:



























































kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify who where 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. Group Review Level: There are four Design Review States that a document may have as follows: DR1 – Un-reviewed document. The DR1 reviews usually require larger, cross functional review teams (i.e. Management, Hardware Engineering, etc.) It is usually advisable, but not required to include outside representation as well such as system engineers. It is up to the document owner to decide on the scope of the review, however, the peer group can decide that a re-review with additional team member is required. DR2 – The Document has previously passed through the peer review process, but requires design changes significant enough to require another group peer review. DR3 – The Document has passed group peer review but needs minor corrections that can be re-reviewed with the Lead Peer Reviewer. DR4 – The document has passed all peer reviews and is ready for release. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Lucas Wendling
Review Date :

12/03/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kevin Smith

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 6: Integration Manual






















Rev 1.023-Jul-13
Peer Review Meeting Log (Integration Manual Review)


























Integration Manual Name:



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

Integration Manual Revision:



kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the integration manual has been reviewed. Rationale: Required for traceability between the MDD and review. Auditors will likely require this. 3





























Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No










Telelogic Synergy version matches header








X
Comments:













































Latest template used








X
Comments:













































Change log contains detailed description of changes








X
Comments:













































Changes Highlighted (for Integrator)








X
Comments:













































General Notes / Comments:



























































kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify who where 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. Group Review Level: There are four Design Review States that a document may have as follows: DR1 – Un-reviewed document. The DR1 reviews usually require larger, cross functional review teams (i.e. Management, Hardware Engineering, etc.) It is usually advisable, but not required to include outside representation as well such as system engineers. It is up to the document owner to decide on the scope of the review, however, the peer group can decide that a re-review with additional team member is required. DR2 – The Document has previously passed through the peer review process, but requires design changes significant enough to require another group peer review. DR3 – The Document has passed group peer review but needs minor corrections that can be re-reviewed with the Lead Peer Reviewer. DR4 – The document has passed all peer reviews and is ready for release. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Lucas Wendling
Review Date :

12/03/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kevin Smith

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Last modified October 12, 2025: Initial commit (0347a62)