• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 173 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

AM2634-Q1: SDK vs MCAL for safety applications

Royston D'souza
Intellectual 836 points
Part Number: AM2634-Q1
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: AM2634, SYSCONFIG

Tool/software:

We have a use case where we have developed a real-time control power application on Core 2. This was done much before safe MCALs were published by TI. The application was developed using sys config and using MCU+SDK (drivers) for the AM2634. The developed SW was deployed to hardware and was testing for about a year in the field.

There is now a requirement to include functional safety over this work. For this purpose is there any way we can use MCU+SDK drivers and diagnostics or we absolutely must use MCAL for safe drivers. Our worry is, if we need to use MCAL, then we need to perform all the configuration for peripherals (ADC, PWM's, CMPSS, etc) in EBTresOS for generating MCAL configuration and there may be still a chance that some configuration may be overlooked while porting from sysconfig to EBTresos.

We have a few questions on the same.

1. Is there any possibility that sysconfig data can be fed to EBTresos for configuration setup?

2. Is there a way to determine, besides manual checking of generated configuration in EBTresos matches what was made in sysconfig earlier for achieving the same functionality on the peripheral

3. Does the MCAL support all peripheral features that can be configured via syscfg (especially for ADC, PWM, etc)

4. Does EbTresoS support configuration of all parameters that can be done for sysconfig for ADC, PWM, CMPSS?

5. Can MCU+SDK be used in place of MCAL for safety MCU drivers?

The challenge for us is:

1. While porting from sysconfig for SDK to EbTresos for MCAL we may miss some peripheral setting which may slip into the code and cause potential run time issues

2. We are worried if we begin this port we may hit a blocker if EbTresos would not support a specific register configuration for PWM or ADC that maybe available in sysconfig.

Thanks

Roy

  • 0
    TI__Guru* 84686 points

    Hi Roy,

    Sorry for the delay in response.

    The sysconfig (From TI) and EB Tresos (From EB) are 2 separate tools and there is no tools currently to compare both the outputs or feed the same from one to another. 

    I understand your concern here. 

    Your application is as mentioned below right?

    Core 0 + Core 1 (in Lockstep) running Autosar

    Core 2 / Core 3 are running the application.


    If the above is correct, the below are a "must-do" approach

    1. If the core runs on Autosar, the drivers to be used should be MCAL drivers, as these drivers are written to comply with Autosar.

    2. For the other cores, running application, it can use the MCU_SDK drivers.

    3. Regarding safety, the MCAL drivers are safety certified for AM263, whereas the MCU_SDK drivers are not.

    4. So the safety of the non-Autosar core, should be taken care by Murata, considering the safety req. there.


    Does the safety requirement only be for core running Autosar or is there safety requirement on the other core as well?

    Regards,

    Nikhil Dasan

  • 0 in reply to Nikhil Dasan
    Intellectual 836 points

    Hi Nikhil,

    I will email you more details as it will include IP specific information of the architecture.

    Thank you

    Roy

  • 0 in reply to Royston D'souza
    TI__Guru* 84686 points

    Sure Roy, 
    Thank you