1. Reliable SW/HW Co-Design for Wireless Communication System Integrating the Spin Model Checker and Celoxica's DK Suite Stefanos Skoulaxinos School of EPS – School of MACS Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos1

2. SW-HW Co-Design, Rules and Dangers The Wireless Communication System – Long Range Identification Tag (LRID) Expected System Survivability Reliability Enhancement Strategies Implementation: Targeted FPGA Platform Testing Procedure Analysis of Results and Reliability Estimation Work in progress: 3d Tag Location Roadmap MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos2

3. SW-HW Co-Design a trip from idealism to realism Dangers 1 Irrational Abstraction: Raising the design level at a theoretical and impractical level for targeted application 2 Flawed Synthesis process Potential 1 Increased system readability and testability, fast code turn-arounds, impressive productivity gains 2 Bridging the gap between software and hardware development methods and tools 3 Application of high level reliability enhancement strategies 4 Level of abstraction can lift the designer seat enabling more complex applications through a more testable development process 5 Possibility of monitoring and healing system defects (SW or HW) through a multi- layered software architecture (Operating System). Lower levels of fault tolerance (TMR) can be synthesized by the Compiler automatically. MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos3

4. LRID Tag - Overview Control Centre (User)Inaccessible Location Tolerate environmental noise Self monitor and heal Increased levels of survivability Minimal power consumption at remote station Maximal processing accuracy at base station Requirements MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos4

5. LRID Tag – Main Operation Event from user Command Transmission by Base Station Signal Present? Command Reception by Remote Station ID Reception by Base Station ID Transmission by Remote Station 1 2 6 3 4 5 MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos5

6. LRID Tag – Task Overhead msecs Base Station Functions Vs Time msecs Remote Station Functions Vs Time MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos6

7. 2 Fault Tolerance__ Run Time monitoring (Watchdog Timers) Fault Location and Isolation SW/HW Redundancy N-Version Programming, Voting Schemes 1 Fault Prevention__ High Quality Specification Design Diversity Modeling, Formal Verification Testing Structured Design Principles Software Reliability Enhancement Strategies V Applied to the Tag V V V V V V MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos7

8. Aiming for high levels of reliability, it is essential to understand the system in depth. Modeling provides an alternative view of the design and thus contributing to this process. Formal verification following modeling is an exhaustive computer based verification covering all possible event scenarios Fault Prevention: Modeling and Formal Verification Description MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos8

9. Spin is considered one of the most efficient software verification tools currently available. It is actively used in safety critical NASA applications such as the application to Cassini (mission to Saturn) and the Mars Pathfinder. Applied to the Tag The Tag was Modelled and Verified in the Spin Model Checker MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos9

10. A set of guidelines which need to be followed by system designers. It can contribute to code readability and testability, making fault-removal processes easier and more effective Fault Prevention: Structured Design Description MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos10

11. Applied to the Tag The core of the application is developed in Promela. Simulation under Spin is performed in this phase. The Promela model is translated with the aid of Bison and Flex to a language compatible with the Synthesis tools for FPGAs (HandelC). Synthesis is performed in this stage. The HDL source code is then imported in Xilinx ISE. Generation of configuration file follows. In this phase, the design can be examined exhaustively through formal verification. It is checked for deadlock conditions, responsiveness, assertions and mutual exclusion violations. The abstract operation implemented by the system is briefly outlined. A number of languages can be deployed in this phase (UML, CORE, YSM). Programming of targeted FPGA hardware is performed and system testing takes place. MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos11

12. Software or hardware redundancy aiming to monitor run time operation of the main system. It is commonly used in high end safety critical applications including NASA missions. In such complex systems, monitoring tends to form multilayered architectures covering both Software and Hardware fault scenarios Fault Tolerance: Run-time Monitoring Description MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos12

13. We have developed Watchdog timers and Forward Error correction (FEC) architectures. We have taken the proven watchdog timer scheme a step further by introducing access points and multilayered implementation. We have developed FEC schemes to counterbalance expected medium noise MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos13 Applied to the Tag

14. -Watchdog Timers are monitoring architectures utilised to detect if a system has deadlocked -Can cover a wide range of faults including software, hardware and real time bugs Main controller Watchdog Timer Reset timer Monitored system Proof of system liveness Monitoring architecture MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos14 Run Time Monitoring Watchdog Timers

15. main() { par // parallel notation { main_operation(); run_time_monitoring(); } main_operation() { function1(); layer1_AP=0; layer1_reset=1; function2(); layer1_AP=1; layer1_reset=1; function3(); layer1_AP=2; layer1_reset=1; } Run_time_monitoring() { par { Watchdog_layer1(); Watchdog_layer2(); } function1() { // some processing layer2_AP=0; layer2_reset=1; // some processing layer2_AP=1; layer2_reset=1; } function2() { // some processing layer2_AP=2; layer2_reset=1; // some processing layer2_AP=3; layer2_reset=1; } function3() { // some processing layer2_AP=4; layer2_reset=1; // some processing layer2_AP=5; layer2_reset=1; } Watchdog layer1 Watchdog layer2 Example of Multi-layered Implementation Run Time Monitoring Watchdog Timers

16. FPGA platforms utilized during Testing -utilized to control: data communication with user PC, ID reception from antenna and tag location computations, all processes executed in parallel -capable of correlating multiple IDs in a truly concurrent manner -100 MHz on board oscillator -can deploy 32 MB of on board SDRAM -the Spartan IIE board supports 3.3V and 2.5V I/O standards 1 Base Station Xilinx Spartan IIE FPGA 2 Remote Station Xilinx Coolrunner II CPLD -Optimized for very low power high performance systems, ideal for wireless applications -On board low power oscillator set at 32kHz -the board supports 1.8V and 3.3V I/O standards MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos16

17. Testing Procedure controlled noise injection 1 Establish a suitable noise pattern 2 Inject noise starting with minimum duration 3 Increase noise duration progressively and check for system liveness 4 Log maximum noise the tag could withstand without failing MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos17

18. MTBF=50 seconds Fault Tolerance Enabled Analysis of Results – Reliability Estimation MTBF=18 seconds Fault Tolerance Disabled Notes: Test Results were analysed in the CASRE Reliability Estimation Tool (developed by JPL-NASA) MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos18

19. Operation 1 User activates tag location query in the front end API (shown above) 2 API connects with the base station hardware (Xilinx Spartan IIE FPGA) and initiates transmission to remote stations 3 Selected Remote stations respond by sending their unique ID sequence. 4 Time of arrival of ID at three base station antennas is utilized by the FPGA to compute precise x,y and z co-ordinates of the tag. The co-ordinates are sent back to the API, which are displayed in a 3d animated view. Work in progress – 3d Tag Location

20. Conclusions With the assistance of Hard and Soft-core processors embedded on state of the art programmable devices, FPGAs begin to move away from solitary DSP operation. They can handle complex control processing functions and form complete systems on chip. The increased complexity of such applications is beginning to move out of reach of traditional low level design routes. SW/HW Co- Design is evolving fast to match and bridge this design handicap. Lessons learned at lower levels of implementation can form a solid base for a multi-layered fault tolerant architecture on a single FPGA platform. MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos19

21. Acknowledgements The presenter wishes to thank everyone who has contributed from the conception (2002) and development of the research project. The Dependable Systems Group and Microengineering Group in Heriot-Watt University, as well as the Institute for System Level Integration (ISLI) and Scottish Embedded Software Centre (SESC) in Livingston. MAPLD2005/116 Skoulaxinos20