SVDiag_Design_Review

Overview

Summary Sheet
Source Code
Source Code (2)
MDD
MDD (2)
Data Dictionary
QAC
QAC (2)
Integration Manual

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet
























Rev 2.026-Aug-13

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. CBD_SVDiag
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. 3





























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. Vince Thomas
Change Request ID:


10134





























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



XData Dictionary


XQAC



































XIntegration Manual


Davinci Files








































































Comments:






























































































General Guidelines:
- The reviews should 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 should be done prior to reviewing the modifications for this Change Result)
- The Change Owner is 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: Source Code






















Rev 2.026-Aug-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. Sa_MtrDrvDiag.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. 21

























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 Motor_Driver_Diagnostics_MDD
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 10

































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 9

































Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No









Pre-review checklist
(change owners only)		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




Comments:

NA







































Software Design and Coding Standard followed
X
Comments:
















































Software Naming Convention followed


X
Comments:










































All buffered outputs are written in every path









Comments:

NA








































Group-review Checklist (review board)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.

Comments:

NA







































Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized









Comments:

NA







































Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined









Comments:

NA

in the FDD Data dictionary




































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.






Comments:
















































Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed









Comments:

NA







































Function prototype and passed parameters are









Comments:

NA

consistent






































General Notes / Comments:


























None































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:

Vince Thomas
Review Date :

10/08/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 3: Source Code (2)






















Rev 2.026-Aug-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. Ap_DigPhsReasDiag.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. 13

























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 Digital Phase Reasonableness Diagnostic
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 14

































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 9

































Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No









Pre-review checklist
(change owners only)		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




Comments:

NA







































Software Design and Coding Standard followed
X
Comments:
















































Software Naming Convention followed


X
Comments:
















































All buffered outputs are written in every path









Comments:

NA








































Group-review Checklist (review board)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.

Comments:

NA







































Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized









Comments:

NA







































Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined









Comments:

NA

in the FDD Data dictionary




































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:

To build with no error, used cal constant



















k_LRPRCommOffsetMargin_Uls_f32 definition in utp
























Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed









Comments:

NA







































Function prototype and passed parameters are









Comments:

NA

consistent






































General Notes / Comments:


























None































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:

Vince Thomas
Review Date :

10/08/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 4: MDD






















Rev 2.026-Aug-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. MtrDrvDiag


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
1of2





























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. 10


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 21

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 9



















































Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No









Group-review Checklist (review board)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)









Comments:

NA













































All Design Exceptions and Limitations are listed









Comments:

NA













































Design Rationale understood captured appropriately









Comments:

NA














































General Notes / Comments:


























Update 2 remaining flowcharts with SVDiag prefix































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:

Vince Thomas
Review Date :

10/08/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 5: MDD (2)






















Rev 2.026-Aug-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. DigPhsReasDiag


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
2of2





























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. 14


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 13

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 9



















































Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No









Group-review Checklist (review board)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:

Vince Thomas
Review Date :

10/08/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 6: Data Dictionary






















Rev 2.026-Aug-13
Peer Review Meeting Log (Data Dictionary Review)


























Data Dictionary Revision:



kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the file is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. 9









































kzshz2: Intended Use: Indicate to the reviewers the type of variable changes. This should be filled out prior to the review by the change owner. Rationale: This will be good information to know to both reviewers and post reviewers of the change. Variables:



























Newly Added


XName Changes


Range Changes


Deleted
































NVM Changes


Other:


































































kzshz2: Intended Use: Indicate to the reviewers the type of calibration changes. This should be filled out prior to the review by the change owner. Rationale: This will be good information to know to both reviewers and post reviewers of the change. Calibrations:



























Newly Added


Name Changes


Range Changes


Default Value Changes
































Deleted


Other:


































































Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No









Group-review Checklist (review board)Telelogic Synergy version matches header








X
Comments:










































Change log contains detailed description of changes








X
Comments:










































All Changes Identified (for Unit Tester)








X
Comments:

NA







































Calibration and NVM names, ranges, and default values









Comments:

NA

compared against FDD




































Global variables names, ranges, and default values









Comments:

NA

compared against FDD Data Dictionary






























































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:

Vince Thomas
Review Date :

10/08/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 7: QAC






















Rev 2.026-Aug-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. MtrDrvDiag

Source File Revision:


21

Module
1of2


























Compliance Document Version:




Unreleased









































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:










































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.



Comments:

NA









































G Group-review Checklist (review board)100% Compliance to the MISRA Compliance DocumentX
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:

Vince Thomas
Review Date :

10/08/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 8: QAC (2)






















Rev 2.026-Aug-13
Peer Review Meeting Log (QAC 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. DigPhsReasDiag

Source File Revision:


13

Module
2of2


























Compliance Document Version:




Unreleased









































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:










































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.



Comments:

NA









































G Group-review Checklist (review board)100% Compliance to the MISRA Compliance DocumentX
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:

Vince Thomas
Review Date :

10/08/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 9: Integration Manual






















Rev 2.026-Aug-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. Vince Thomas

Integration Manual Revision:



kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the integration manual has been reviewed. Rationale: Required for traceability between the MDD and review. Auditors will likely require this. 1





























Quality Check Items:

































YesNo
Rationale is required for all answers of No









Group-review Checklist (review board)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)









Comments:

NA








































General Notes / Comments:























Initial Version


































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:

Vince Thomas
Review Date :

10/08/13
Group Review Level:


DR4



























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Selva Sengottaiyan

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































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