AM263P4-Q1: Bswmd.arxml files are not as per autosar

Hello, the subject matter expert is out of office today but should be able to respond to you tomorrow

Hi,

There are 3 changes in the comparison.

1. Missing interrupt source information - We've raised this as a bug internally. This is a mandatory parameter, which is missed in our arxml. 
May I know how this field is being used in your environment. This could help us get more clarity.

2. The field EXPECTED-ENTRY vs PROVIDED-ENTRY - I'm checking this internally as we don't see a field called PROVIDED-ENTRY in autosar spec. Could you help to point this spec or is it an EB specific parameter?

3. <MODULE-ID>123</MODULE-ID> - This is being generated at the end in the artop tool itself as the arxml file is being generated from here. May I know if this is causing issue at your end?

Thanks and Regards,

Nikhil Dasan

Hi Nikhil,

Could you please let us know the BSWMD implementation differences between Eth, EthTrcv and the other modules? We have tried using the Eth implementation approach for the other modules, and it seems to be working as expected.

Could you please share your feedback.

Regards,

Shaik Abdul Mohasin 

We are currently checking this at our end.

Hi Abdul, 

Can i get the replies to these questions (2 and 3) that Nikhil raised? This will help fasten things at our end. 

Nikhil Dasan said:

There are 3 changes in the comparison.

1. Missing interrupt source information - We've raised this as a bug internally. This is a mandatory parameter, which is missed in our arxml. 
May I know how this field is being used in your environment. This could help us get more clarity.

2. The field EXPECTED-ENTRY vs PROVIDED-ENTRY - I'm checking this internally as we don't see a field called PROVIDED-ENTRY in autosar spec. Could you help to point this spec or is it an EB specific parameter?

3. <MODULE-ID>123</MODULE-ID> - This is being generated at the end in the artop tool itself as the arxml file is being generated from here. May I know if this is causing issue at your end?

I would also request you to provide with a list of modules that have a different implementation compared to the working Eth BSWMD? 

Abdul Mohasin Shaik said:

We have tried using the Eth implementation approach for the other modules, and it seems to be working as expected.

Regards, 
Pranav Siddappa

Hello Pranav, 

Sorry For the late reply 

these are repiles for the above one

2. The field EXPECTED-ENTRY vs PROVIDED-ENTRY - I'm checking this internally as we don't see a field called PROVIDED-ENTRY in autosar spec. Could you help to point this spec or is it an EB specific parameter?

-- I haved shared the document in this reply please refer to the doc - 6.1.3. Basic software module description (BSWMD)

3. <MODULE-ID>123</MODULE-ID> - This is being generated at the end in the artop tool itself as the arxml file is being generated from here. May I know if this is causing issue at your end?

-- as per the EB tresos AutoCore Requirements for MCAL vendors Doc, Module ID should come before PROVIDED-ENTRY or else we are getting compilation issue as below 

AutoCore_Requirements_MCAL.pdf

4. I would also request you to provide with a list of modules that have a different implementation compared to the working Eth BSWMD? 

-- for Eth and Ethtrcv the implementation is same the rest all other modules are having different implementation 

Hi Abdul, 

Thank you for the response. We are looking into it internally and will get back to you once there is an update. 

Regards, 
Pranav Siddappa

Hi Pranav,

We have encountered few more compilation issues regarding the bswmd files,

1. why there is a difference in the short name. In our build environment, we are using the M4 format, where the short name is expected to match the module name, i.e., Adc_TI_AM263Px, and not Adc_TI_AM263px.

In all other files, the short name is consistent; this difference exists only in the SWCD ARXML file.

2. In the BSW-INTERRUPT-ENTITY and BSW-CALLED-ENTITY, the <MINIMUM-START-INTERVAL> tag is expected immediately after the <SHORT-NAME>. If this tag is not added, we encounter a compilation issue, as shown below.

3.Before the <VENDOR> tag, the <OPTIONS> tag is expected. If it is not present, we encounter the compilation issue shown below.

for reference I have added the Eb update file here, please find it below 

Adc_Bswmd.arxml_EB_update.txt

Adc_Bswmd.arxml_origin_version.txt

can you please provide your feedback 

Regards,

Shaik Abdul Mohasin

Hi Abdul, 

Abdul Mohasin Shaik said:

2. The field EXPECTED-ENTRY vs PROVIDED-ENTRY

Abdul Mohasin Shaik said:

3. <MODULE-ID>123</MODULE-ID>

The section 6.1.3. of the document attached points to AUTOSAR Spec of BSW module version 4.0.3, meanwhile we conform to 4.3.1. 
 
AUTOSAR Spec of BDW module doesn't have an attribute - providedEntry, it was replaced in 4.3.1

Abdul Mohasin Shaik said:

2. In the BSW-INTERRUPT-ENTITY and BSW-CALLED-ENTITY, the <MINIMUM-START-INTERVAL> tag is expected immediately after the <SHORT-NAME>. If this tag is not added, we encounter a compilation issue, as shown below.

The above issue is caused due to mismatch in AUTOSAR version. MINIMUM-START-INTERVAL tag is not present in 4.3.1. 

Abdul Mohasin Shaik said:

1. why there is a difference in the short name. In our build environment, we are using the M4 format, where the short name is expected to match the module name, i.e., Adc_TI_AM263Px, and not Adc_TI_AM263px.

The above issue has been reported internally. Thank you for raising this issue. 

 

Abdul Mohasin Shaik said:

3.Before the <VENDOR> tag, the <OPTIONS> tag is expected.

The above issue has been reported internally. Thank you for raising the issue. 

Regards, 
Pranav Siddappa

Hi Abdul, 

Abdul Mohasin Shaik said:

1. why there is a difference in the short name. In our build environment, we are using the M4 format, where the short name is expected to match the module name, i.e., Adc_TI_AM263Px, and not Adc_TI_AM263px.

I wanted to clarify what you meant by "module name". Were you referring to "module id" or the name of the folder ?

Regards, 
Pranav Siddappa

Hi Pranav,

Our query is regarding the different case sensitivity used for the module name (Adc_TI_AM263px) in <Module>_Bswmd.arxml files with respect other places like plugin.xml, <Module>.arxml and Folder Name (Adc_TI_AM263Px).

As per our understanding the naming implementation should be same for complete module. 

please check and provide your feedback

Regards,

Shaik Abdul Mohasin

Hi Pranav,

Regarding to this reply

Please find attached EB MCAL Requirement doc, AutoCore_Requirements_MCAL.pdf

6303.AutoCore_Requirements_MCAL.pdf

please refer to this document Section 6.1.3. Basic software module description (BSWMD)

Regards,

Shaik Abdul Mohasin

Hi Abdul, 

The section 6.1.3 of  document you shared points to reference 5:
 
Reference 5 is BSW Module Description Template v4.0.3. We follow AUTOSAR v4.3.1. 


This reply was to convey the same that the attribute providedEntry was removed in 4.3.1:



Regards, 
Pranav Siddappa

Hi Abdul,

Could you please confirm if you are following Autosar req. 4.3.1? 

As per this version of Autosar, the field PROVIDED-ENTRY is changed to IMPLEMENTED-ENTRY.

Is this something that needs to be updated in the EB Document /cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/908/6303.AutoCore_5F00_Requirements_5F00_MCAL.pdf

Thanks and Regards,

Nikhil Dasan

Hello Nikhil,

we are checking this internally regarding with our EB MCAL Requirement Document. We'll update you 

Regards,

Mohasin

Hello Nikhil,

This issue has been reported from lucid side as well and this issue exists in all the Bswmd files of MCAL Modules, will it be fixed in the upcoming Release?

Please provide your feedback

Regards,

Mohasin

Hello Pranav,

Regarding to this issue, The BswModuleEntry is given as EXPECTED ENTRY in Bswmd file. But after discussing internally it is recommended to use IMPLEMENTED ENTRY, below mentioned the snippet of autosar 4.3.1

please refer to the below snippet of schema of AUTOSAR_00044.xsd

for reference I have added the EB_update files below

7416.Adc_Bswmd_arxml_EB_Update.txt

Adc_Bswmd_arxml_origin_version.txt

Please provide your feedback 

Regards,

Mohasin

hello pranav,

regarding to this issue, the minimum start interval tag is present in the autosar 4.3.1 document

can you please check it once and provide your feedback

Regards, 

Mohasin

Hi Mohasin,

I will get back to you in the next 3-5 days. Sorry for the delay in response. 

Regards, 
Pranav Siddappa

Hi Mohasin, 

This has been reported internally and fixed. 

Regards, 
Pranav Siddappa