About AE | For Advertisers | Contact AE | Subscribe to AE | HOME

 

Newsletter:

Subscribe Now
Current Newsletter
Archive

Resources:

Blog
Webinars
Conferences
Buyer's Guide
Events
Editorial Calendar
Classifieds
Be An Author

Advertisers:

Advertiser Info
Rent Mailing Lists
Rent E-mail Lists
Digital Ads

Related Sites:

RF Design
PET
Electronic Design
EEPN
Microwaves & RF
Planet EE



Software Tools: Automakers Continue to Push Suppliers for More

Mar 1, 2008 12:00 PM
By Randy Frank Contributing Editor


Figure 3. Embedded IDE Link MU provides a high-speed bidirectional communication between The MathWorks’ MATLAB, Simulink, and Green Hill’s MULTI.

Since no single supplier has a finished, complete solution, several new methods are being developed. Today, the first new tools for new processes are appearing in this area. TargetLink and SystemDesk from dSPACE are a specific example. TargetLink, dSPACE production code generator, generates efficient C code directly from The MathWorks Simulink/Stateflow models. With this well-established tool, designers model their algorithm and automatically generate code for the ECU.

On one ECU, designers often model one software module or smaller amount of software modules within one TargetLink model. However, an ECU can have hundreds of software components, depending on the definition of a software module. As a result, a design picture must show the software modules on the ECU and how they interact. Previously, engineers would create a picture and show the software modules on the ECU or on a network of ECUs. Each of those software modules can be created using TargetLink.

Ten years ago, a dozen or so software components were relatively easy to track. Dealing with hundreds or more software components, the increased complexity makes it more and more difficult to handle the complete system. “Once the overall architecture picture is established, all of the various design sections need to work off of that picture,” said Niggemann. If something changes, it must be changed in the overall picture, so every designer knows about the change and can determine how it impacts their portion of the system. For example, the addition of a CAN signal or new software component must be considered for the overall system.

TargetLink provides the overall software and system architecture. SystemDesk is a recently announced AUTOSAR-compatible tool and also models the mapping between software components and the hardware topology.

SystemDesk was specifically developed for planning, implementing and integrating complex system architectures and distributed software systems. Developed in parallel with AUTOSAR, SystemDesk allows users to handle large ECU systems. Software architecture developments and changes can be handled more readily with an exchange format that allows a supplier to obtain the software architecture from a vehicle manufacturer.

“With SystemDesk you can use very high-level block diagrams, graphical dialog, to model the system and this system will be AUTOSAR compliant,” said Niggemann. Similarly, hundreds of software components can be implemented using TargetLink. Since TargetLink is also from dSPACE, automatically creating the framework for the TargetLink system, implementing the TargetLink system and transferring to SystemDesk is straightforward.

Figure 4. With AnsoftLinks, design databases from popular third-party EDA layout tools and Mechanical CAD (MCAD) packages can be easily transfered into Ansoft electromagnetic field simulation products.

The changing methodology has increased the need to work cooperatively with other companies. For example, Elektrobit Automotive creates basic software such as operating systems or drivers for ECUs and dSPACE does not. Working on the application algorithm level, interaction between the two levels is essential for their customers' successful use of both companies' toolsets. While throttle control would be done by dSPACE, the driver would be created with a tool from Elektrobit.

Working with the other company verifies that the tools work together and has advantages for both companies. Since customers use the tools together anyway, when suppliers work together to check the tools' functionality, the customer encounters fewer problems. “I think we definitely see a lot of cooperation on a level of verification on whether our tools work together,” said Niggemann.



January-February 2008







Sponsored By:

 
Back to Top


Contact Us  For Advertisers  For Search Partners  Privacy Policy  Subscribe  RSS
© 2007 Penton Media, Inc. All rights reserved.