HW/SW Tradeoffs for Dynamic Message Scheduling in Controller Area Network (CAN)

  • Tobias Ziermann
  • Zoran Salcic
  • Jürgen Teich
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7767)

Abstract

Designers of distributed embedded control systems face many design challenges related to change of system configuration, functionality and number of participating computing nodes, which affect the usage of the communication bus. The concept of self-adaptivity of participating nodes plays an important role in reducing design effort while guaranteeing high system performance. The dynamic offset adaptation algorithm (DynOAA) for adaptive message scheduling reduces average message response times in CAN-based systems with high bus loads. This technique has in previous work proven its benefit in simulation. However, it is still necessary to test the algorithm in a real physical environment. In this paper, we use FPGAs with their capability of performing rapid system prototyping. Our design space exploration shows that both pure software and pure hardware implementations are possible. However, parts of the software implementation require a significant amount of computation. As a result a mixed HW/SW implementation is proposed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    CAN specification 2.0 b. Robert Bosch GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony, R., Rettberg, A., Chen, D., Jahnich, I., de Boer, G., Ekelin, C.: Towards a dynamically reconfigurable automotive control system architecture. In: Embedded System Design: Topics, Techniques and Trends, pp. 71–84 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atmel Corporation. 8-bit AVR Microcontroller with 32K/64K/128K Bytes of ISP Flash and CAN Controller (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun, C., Havet, L., Navet, N.: NETCARBENCH: A benchmark for techniques and tools used in the design of automotive communication systems. In: 7th IFAC International Conference on Fieldbuses and Networks in Industrial and Embedded Systems, pp. 321–328 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bueno, E.J., Hernandez, A., Rodriguez, F.J., Giron, C., Mateos, R., Cobreces, S.: A dsp- and fpga-based industrial control with high-speed communication interfaces for grid converters applied to distributed power generation systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 56(3), 654–669 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, R.I., Burns, A., Bril, R.J., Lukkien, J.J.: Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised. Real-Time Systems 35(3), 239–272 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gabrick, M., Nicholson, R., Winters, F., Young, B., Patton, J.: Fpga considerations for automotive applications. In: Proc. SAE Conf. (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galea, F., Gatt, E., Casha, O., Grech, I.: Control unit for a continuous variable transmission for use in an electric car. In: 17th IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits, and Systems (ICECS), pp. 247–250 (December 2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gamiz, J., Samitier, J., Fuertes, J.M., Rubies, O.: Practical evaluation of messages latencies in CAN. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, ETFA 2003, pp. 185–192 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goossens, J.: Scheduling of offset free systems. Real-Time Systems 24(2), 239–258 (2003)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grenier, M., Havet, L., Navet, N.: Pushing the limits of CAN-scheduling frames with offsets provides a major performance boost. In: Proc. of the 4th European Congress Embedded Real Time Software (ERTS 2008), Toulouse, France (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    CAN in Automation. Canopen, http://www.canopen.org/
  13. 13.
    Marino, P., Poza, F., Dominguez, M.A., Otero, S.: Electronics in automotive engineering: A top-down approach for implementing industrial fieldbus technologies in city buses and coaches. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 56(2), 589–600 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Navet, N., Simonot-Lion, F.: Automotive embedded systems handbook. CRC (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samii, S., Rafiliu, S., Eles, P., Peng, Z.: A simulation methodology for worst-case response time estimation of distributed real-time systems. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, DATE, pp. 556–561. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou, F., Li, S., Hou, X.: Development method of simulation and test system for vehicle body CAN bus based on CANoe. In: 7th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, WCICA, pp. 7515–7519. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ziermann, T., Salcic, Z., Teich, J.: DynOAA - dynamic offset adaptation algorithm for improving response times of CAN systems. In: Proc. of Design, Automation, and Test in Europe (DATE), pp. 269–272 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Ziermann
    • 1
  • Zoran Salcic
    • 2
  • Jürgen Teich
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Erlangen-NurembergGermany
  2. 2.The University of AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations