AUTOSAR

AUTOSAR

Posts 1-7 of 7
  • Alwyn Eapachen
    Alwyn Eapachen
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Implementation conformance class 1
    Hello all,

    Pls help me with this doubt regarding ICC1 implementation.
    I read that in ICC1 entire BSW will be a single module.
    RTE generally uses standardised calls to OS and COM(SetEvent(), Com_Send() etc) and in our ICC1 implementation
    if those APIs are not available, how can RTE handle the communication and SWC runnable invocations?

    Thanks in advance,
    With regards,
    Alwyn
    • 13 Apr 2010, 10:37 am
  • Dr. Markus Brenner
    Dr. Markus Brenner
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re: Implementation conformance class 1
    Hey Alwyn,


    Alwyn Eapachen wrote:
    I read that in ICC1 entire BSW will be a single module.
    RTE generally uses standardised calls to OS and COM(SetEvent(), Com_Send() etc) and in our ICC1 implementation
    if those APIs are not available, how can RTE handle the communication and SWC runnable invocations?
    The document AUTOSAR_EXP_LayeredSoftwareArchitecture (AUTOSAR 4.0, Revision 1) includes a figure illustrating an ICC1 Architecture (page 62). Quoting the document, "In a basic software which is compliant to ICC1 no modules or clusters are required. The inner structure of this proprietary basic software is not specified".

    The important statement for your question is the second sentence: "The _inner_ structure ... is not specified": The stress here is on _inner structure_, as opposed to _outer structure_. The diagram shows how in an ICC1 architecture there are only four layers left of the original AUTOSAR architecture:

    1) The Application Layer including your Application Software Components.

    2) The AUTOSAR Runtime Environment (RTE)

    3) The Proprietary Basic Software cluster

    4) The ECU Hardware


    While it is not stressed explicitely, this slide implies that:

    a) The RTE in an ICC1 architecture IS NOT PART of the proprietary BSW cluster. It is implemented in accordance to the RTE specification.

    b) All interfaces / services between RTE and Proprietary software cluster need to conform to the RTE specification: Otherwise the RTE simply will not be able to function correctly.

    So, in other words: Your proprietary BSW ICC-1 cluster must ensure that every service used by the RTE is being implemented _to the standard_. This includes:

    - COM interface
    - Scheduler configuration
    - Whichever other services your Application Software Components use (e.g. DEM, DCM, FIM, EA, I/O HW abstraction Interfaces etc.)


    Hope this helps!
    -markus
    • 13 Apr 2010, 12:05 pm
  • Andreas Graf
    Andreas Graf    Premium Member
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^2: Implementation conformance class 1
    Hello Markus,


     
    a) The RTE in an ICC1 architecture IS NOT PART of the proprietary BSW cluster. It is implemented in accordance to the RTE specification.
    I think this would contradict slide 63. Quote "Basic software (including the RTE) which is AUTOSAR compliant (ICC1-3) has to behave to the outside as specified by ICC3." RTE is also listed as a BSW module in the "official" BSW module list.

    Basically, a number of authors refer to ICC1 as what was formerly known as "single-sided RTE" and considered an important migration strategy. In the single-sided-RTE approach, the interface of the RTE downwards is proprietary and black box. With the single-sided approach you could either code the RTE by hand (tedious) , use a custom specific RTE generator that maps to your legacy BSW (not too difficult, e.g. with Artop + M2T technologies) or write a wrapper.

    Best Regards,

    Andreas
    This post was modified on 13 Apr 2010 at 09:12 pm.
    • 13 Apr 2010, 8:46 pm
  • Alwyn Eapachen
    Alwyn Eapachen
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^2: Implementation conformance class 1
    Yes sure.
    Thank you Marcus.
    Now a wrapper between RTE and proprietary BSW is required, am I correct?

    Regards,
    Alwyn
    • 14 Apr 2010, 02:25 am
  • Markus Hardt
    Markus Hardt    Premium Member   Group moderator
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^3: Implementation conformance class 1
    Hi Alwyn,

    as Andreas stated you don't have to be BSW API-compliant if you use your own RTE implementation in an ICC1 scenario. Therefore you won't need a wrapper if your complete BSW stack (including RTE) behave on application- and bus-level as AUTOSAR expects it.

    But if you use a 3rd-party RTE that will expect a full-fledged BSW stack, your ICC1 BSW stack has to provide the appropriate API calls to this RTE.

    Regards,
    Markus H.
    • 14 Apr 2010, 10:43 am
  • Oliver Meili
    Oliver Meili
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^4: Implementation conformance class 1
    Hello,

    very delicate topic indeed.

    The issue without a wrapper is the fact, that for many access to the AUTOSAR services, the RTE does not provide more than macros to map ports to BSW APIs. Thus if your basic software behaves differently than the AUTOSAR services, your application has to reflect this fact and act accordingly. This then restricts the use of your SW-C in an AUTOSAR-compliant ECU, i.e., where the BSW is also implemented according to the AUTOSAR standard (AUTOSAR behavior != legacy behavior).

    The only way I see today being able to implement AUTOSAR compliant SW-Cs is to have an interface of your BSW which behaves in exactly the same way as the AUTOSAR BSW does.

    The single-sided RTE, which is frequently cited, is in my opinion a myth, unless you develop it by hand and include the BSW wrapper inside this RTE (which makes it a whole lot more complex than the AUTOSAR RTE, which in the optimal case generates macros for service access). This also means that you not only adapt APIs but may have a complete RAM mirror handling for NVRAM services inside your RTE, a complete adaptation layer for diagnostics communication and the fault memory.

    Best regards

    Oliver Meili
    • 14 Apr 2010, 1:24 pm
  • Alwyn Eapachen
    Alwyn Eapachen
    The company name is only visible to registered members.
    Re^5: Implementation conformance class 1
    thank you all for your support...

    regards,
    Alwyn
    • 15 Apr 2010, 03:33 am