• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 99 subscribers
  • Views 657 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.

Original question:

TDA4VM: IPC communication between Main Domain and MCU domain

TDA4VM: safety in-terms of IPC

Tanvi Gore
Intellectual 722 points
Part Number: TDA4VM
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: DRA829,

SPRUIR1_DRA829_TDA4VM_Safety_Manual_F5_draft_Auto.pdf

Hi Suman,

can you provide me more details about safety stack, what does it mean for ipc ?

does is it mean safety as in data loss during communication between cores(A72 using linux other cores using TI-ORTOS)?

if yes, which method will you suggest for data exchange between core with safe data handling?

system interconnect is it part of IPC?

1.IPC using CDD

2.MCAL IPC

3.IPC using SPI 

I am referring attached safety manual as attached but your suggestions will be very helpful.

  • 0
    TI__Guru** 111595 points

    Hi Tanvi,

    System Interconnect is the hardware bus, and it has nothing to do with software IPC. The Mailbox IP is Safety-compliant on TDA4VM, and this translates to integrity of data within the IP.  

    IPC CDD and MCAL IPC are one and the same - these are the IPC layers you would want to use for a AutoSAR compliant system.

    Linux running on A72 is definitely not considered as a Safety software component.

    regards

    Suman

  • 0 in reply to Suman Anna
    TI__Guru** 111595 points

    Hi Tanvi,

    The rpmsg transport is like UDP in Networking, there is no guarantee that a message will always be delivered to the remote-processor side.

    Eg: A local end-point is created on Linux-side within an application, so if the remote-side sends a message before the application is launched, the message is dropped at the kernel-level. A similar scenario would happen if you killed the application, and a remote processor continues to send a message to an end-point within the application.

    I hope that answers your "data loss during communication" question.

    regards

    Suman

  • 0 in reply to Suman Anna
    Intellectual 722 points

    Hi Suman,

    Thanks for your reply..

    so if I want to communicate MCU and MAIN domain, which communication method will you suggest as TI expert.

    should I go with IPC using SPI or  CDD IPC (as per examples for both are provided in SDK example SDK version;- Processor SDK RTOS J721E 07_03_00)

    Thanks & Regards,

    Tanvi N. Gore

  • +1 in reply to Tanvi Gore
    TI__Mastermind 36307 points

    Hi Tanvi,

    Looking back at this thread. Did you need more clarification on which IPC to use? This would depend on your usecase. The CDD IPC is tailored to the AUTOSAR environment as a Complex Device Driver. It is also integrated in the MCUSW project, in case you were using these examples.

    IPC using SPI has actually been removed as a demo in MCUSW in future SDK releases, so perhaps this helps in making your decision.

    Regards,

    Erick

  • 0 in reply to Erick Narvaez
    Intellectual 722 points

    Hi Erick,

    Thank you for reply.

    currently I am referring 

    ---> main_mcspi_slave_mode  example provided in <PDK install path>/packages/ti/drv/spi/example/mcspi_slavemode

    I want to make core regarding changes in it,I am trying to do it without CCS and debugger.

    you can refer following thread.

    ---> e2e.ti.com/.../tda4vm-tda4vm-tda4---about-the-delay-time-after-spi-transmission-is-completed

    can you suggest any prefer document for this example?

    Regards,

    Tanvi

  • 0 in reply to Tanvi Gore
    TI__Mastermind 36307 points

    Tanvi,

    Unfortunately I do not have more information about this example. Could you can start a new ticket with a query on this particular example?

    Thanks,

    Erick