|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
TMS570_uDiag |
| 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.
FDD32B_TMS570_uDiag_000.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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.
Kathleen Creager |
| Change Request ID: |
|
|
| 11157, 11158. 11176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| X | Source Code |
|
|
|
| | Data Dictionary |
|
|
| X | QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | Integration Manual |
|
|
| X | Davinci Files (Generate files) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments: |
|
| 1) Most modules in this component do not have an MDD. CR 10409 written to create MDDs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2) Reviewed changes only. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3) Reviewed the ten changed and one new source files (out of 21 source files total) and their QAC results, plus the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| changed DaVinci files, generate files, include files, and integration manuals (uDiag and FlsTst) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NOTE QAC ESM and QAC VIM tabs for future actions to be considered on next rev of component |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NOTE that there are multiple Cd_uDiagxxx.c source files that use RTE functions, but only one Cd_uDiag component. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Consider writing a continuous improvement CR to restructure the component. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-Aug-13 |
Peer Review Meeting Log (Davinci Review) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| Rationale is required for all answers of No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-review checklist for change owners | DCF: Latest StdDef imported |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| imported StdDef_2.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 board | All 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: |
|
| NA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCF: Inputs/Outputs configuration paremeters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| NA |
|
| reviewed | kzshz2:
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: |
|
| NA |
|
| 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: |
|
| NA |
|
| 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: |
|
| NA |
|
| read/writes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCF: Runnable calling frequencies match requirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| FDD does not specify frequencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagCCRM.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.
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagClockMonitor.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.
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagECC.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.
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagESM.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
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagIOMM.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.
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagParity.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
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagResetHandler.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
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagStaticRegs.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.
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagVIM.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.
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/13/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
RednRpdShtdn.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.
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagLossOfExec.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.
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Design and Coding Standard followed |
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| as checked by QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software Naming Convention followed |
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| for new/changed code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| 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.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| Compared against FDD; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| however FDD needs updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| N/A for this review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/13/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagCCRM.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| Module |
| 1 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagClockMonitor.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 10 |
|
| Module |
| 2 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagECC.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 8 |
|
| Module |
| 3 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagESM.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 7 |
|
| Module |
| 4 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 100% Compliance to the MISRA Compliance Document | X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| General Notes / Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| QAC does not recognize CODE_STATE pragma (from a previous revision of the component) -- but verified that the pragma is recognized and used |
|
| as expected by the compiler. Consider further investigation of the QAC warning in a later rev of the component. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagIOMM.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 6 |
|
| Module |
| 5 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagParity.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 7 |
|
| Module |
| 6 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagResetHandler.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 7 |
|
| Module |
| 7 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagStaticRegs.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 8 |
|
| Module |
| 8 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagVIM.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 12 |
|
| Module |
| 9 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 100% Compliance to the MISRA Compliance Document | X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| General Notes / Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Warning for extern declaration of D_VIMTABLENAME_CNT_U32 -- not a new warning, has existed for previous versions of the component -- |
|
| moved declaration to uDiag.h |
|
| Warning for externally linked declaration of VIM_Fallback -- not a new warning, has existed for previous versions of the component -- |
|
| this function could maybe be declared static but will require testing -- consider in next version of component |
|
| QAC does not recognize CODE_STATE pragma (from a previous revision of the component) -- but verified that the pragma is recognized and used |
|
| as expected by the compiler. Consider further investigation of the QAC warning in a later rev of the component. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/13/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
RednRpdShtdn.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 1 |
|
| Module |
| 10 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiagLossOfExec.c |
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| 6 |
|
| Module |
| 11 | of | 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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: |
|
| QAC_6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Group-review Checklist (review board) | 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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/13/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
Cd_uDiag_Integration_Manual |
|
| 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.
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| General Notes / Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Only made updates related to the changes made in this rev of the component, and some cleanup moving FlsTst info to FlsTst Integration Manual. Cd_uDiag |
|
| Integration manual is incomplete. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 2.0 | 26-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.
FlsTst_Integration_Manual |
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| General Notes / Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Updated to latest rev of the integration manuaol template. Moved some FlsTst info from Cd_uDiag integration manual to FlsTst integration manual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
| Kathleen Creager |
| Review Date : |
|
| 01/10/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Selva Sengottaiyan |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|