Control Function Placement and Routing for Hardware Integration

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The manual updating of software to ensure compatibility with new or substituted hardware components in control systems is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and difficult to test, limiting the pace at which hardware components can be integrated with existing operating system platforms.

Innovation Solution

A method that determines the optimal 'place' and 'route' for executing a control function by assessing processing and communication capabilities of hardware components, generating and optimizing solutions using machine learning to select the most desirable execution path, thereby automating the integration process.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual software updating is performed to ensure compatibility with new or substituted hardware components, then software compatibility and functionality are maintained, but development time and labor intensity increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesoftware compatibilityVSAvoidsoftware development time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-service by automatically generating, optimizing, and selecting place and route solutions without human intervention. The automated place and route determination system evaluates hardware capabilities, generates multiple execution solutions, scores them based on desirability criteria, and selects the optimal solution automatically, eliminating the need for manual software updates while maintaining compatibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes parameters dynamically by evaluating multiple hardware components' processing and communication capabilities, then adjusting the execution place and data route parameters automatically. The machine learning model optimizes these parameters by generating and scoring multiple solutions, selecting the best configuration without manual intervention, thus resolving the contradiction between maintaining compatibility and reducing development time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Adaptability or versatility

If manual determination of execution place and data route is performed, then software compatibility is ensured, but the pace of hardware component integration is limited

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehardware integration capabilityVSAvoidhardware integration speed
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The automated place and route determination system enables the control system to self-adapt to new hardware components without manual intervention. The system automatically evaluates hardware capabilities, generates execution solutions, and selects optimal configurations, allowing rapid integration of new hardware components while maintaining software compatibility through automated optimization rather than manual adaptation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adapts to different hardware configurations by generating multiple solutions and selecting the optimal one based on real-time evaluation of hardware capabilities. The machine learning model continuously optimizes place and route parameters based on hardware characteristics, enabling flexible and rapid integration of diverse hardware components without manual reconfiguration.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Measurement precision

If multiple solutions are generated and optimized using machine learning, then the quality of execution path selection is improved, but computational complexity and processing time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesolution optimization accuracyVSAvoidsystem computational complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the complex optimization problem into distinct phases: hardware capability evaluation, solution generation, solution scoring, and optimal solution selection. Each phase handles a specific aspect of the optimization, breaking down the computationally intensive task into manageable segments that can be processed efficiently, thereby reducing overall system complexity while maintaining optimization accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary action by pre-evaluating hardware capabilities and pre-generating multiple execution solutions before final selection. The machine learning model prepares and scores multiple candidate solutions in advance, identifying the optimal execution path before actual runtime, which reduces the computational burden during critical execution phases while maintaining high optimization accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS12169394B2Method of optimizing execution of a function on a control system and apparatus for the same
Publication Date: 2024.12.17 WOVEN BY TOYOTA INC
  • US12169394B2 patent drawing
  • US12169394B2 patent drawing
  • US12169394B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method of optimizing execution of a control function on a control system including a plurality of hardware components includes: determining a processing capability and a communication capability of each of the plurality of hardware components; generating a plurality of solutions for executing the control function using the plurality of hardware components based on a processing capability and a communication capability of each of the plurality of hardware components; scoring the plurality of generated solutions based on a desirability of each solution; selecting a solution having a highest desirability score; and controlling the control system to execute the control function based on the selected solution.