Control Function Execution Mapping for Hardware Integration Changes

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 compatibilityVSAvoiddevelopment time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically determines execution places and data signal routes by analyzing hardware component characteristics and communication connections, eliminating the need for manual software updates. The control system self-adapts to new or substituted hardware components by autonomously generating optimized execution plans based on hardware capabilities and communication topology.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts execution parameters (processing location, communication routes) based on hardware component characteristics. By changing these parameters automatically rather than manually updating software, the system maintains compatibility across different hardware configurations while reducing development time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

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

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesoftware compatibilityVSAvoidhardware integration pace
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system autonomously determines the optimal execution place and data signal route by analyzing hardware characteristics and communication connections. This self-service capability enables rapid integration of new hardware components without manual software intervention, significantly increasing the pace of hardware integration while maintaining compatibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically generates optimized execution plans based on real-time hardware component characteristics and communication topology. This dynamic adaptation allows the system to quickly accommodate new or substituted hardware components, accelerating the integration pace while ensuring software compatibility through automated optimization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Reliability

If manual software updates are performed for each hardware component change, then compatibility is maintained, but the complexity of the development process increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvehardware-software compatibilityVSAvoiddevelopment process complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system automatically adapts to hardware component changes by autonomously determining execution places and communication routes. This eliminates the complex manual process of updating software for each hardware change, reducing development process complexity while maintaining hardware-software compatibility through automated analysis and optimization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

4Reliability

If manual testing and simulation is performed for software updates, then compatibility issues are detected, but the process becomes difficult to test and simulate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesoftware compatibilityVSAvoidtesting difficulty
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDifficulty of detecting and measuring

Solution Approach 1:

The control system performs automated compatibility verification by analyzing hardware characteristics and generating optimized execution plans. This self-service testing approach detects compatibility issues automatically without requiring complex manual testing and simulation processes, reducing testing difficulty while ensuring software compatibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Data Source

PatentEP4270189A1Method of optimizing execution of a function on a control system and apparatus for the same
Publication Date: 2023.11.01 WOVEN BY TOYOTA INC
  • EP4270189A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4270189A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4270189A1 patent drawingFigure 3

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.