Vehicular Request Arbitration Architecture for Scalable Device Control
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing vehicular arbitration systems face complexity in adding new applications and expanding functions due to the need to review and update arbitration rules for multiple requests from both new and existing applications, making it difficult to integrate new features without compromising system stability.
Innovation Solution
A vehicular arbitration system with a main manager and sub-managers that receive and arbitrate requests, allowing easy addition of new applications by processing abstract requests and providing feedback on device states, enabling efficient selection and prioritization of control actions for on-vehicle devices.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If one electronic control device receives and arbitrates requests from both existing and new applications, then arbitration coverage is comprehensive, but system complexity increases and new application integration becomes difficult
Solution Approach 1:
The arbitration system is divided into multiple electronic control devices, each responsible for specific applications or functions. This segmentation allows new applications to be integrated by assigning them to appropriate control devices without requiring comprehensive review of all arbitration rules across the entire system.
Solution Approach 2:
A gateway device acts as an intermediary between application execution units and electronic control devices. The gateway manages request routing and coordination, enabling new applications to integrate smoothly without directly complicating the arbitration logic within control devices.
2Adaptability or versatility
If comprehensive arbitration rules are established for all applications, then request arbitration is thorough, but adding new applications requires reviewing and updating all existing arbitration rules
Solution Approach 1:
Arbitration rules are segmented and localized to specific electronic control devices rather than being centralized. Each control device manages its own arbitration rules for assigned applications, allowing new functions to be added by configuring only the relevant local rules without maintaining a comprehensive global rule set.
Solution Approach 2:
The system establishes predefined arbitration rules and request templates in advance for common scenarios. When new applications are added, they can leverage these pre-configured rules and structures, reducing the need to create and review comprehensive arbitration rules from scratch.
3Productivity
If a single control device handles all arbitration, then centralized control is achieved, but processing load increases and response time may be affected
Solution Approach 1:
The arbitration function is segmented across multiple electronic control devices distributed throughout the system. Each device handles arbitration for its specific domain, distributing the processing load and enabling parallel request handling, which improves overall efficiency without requiring additional centralized control infrastructure.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3A
AI summary
A vehicular arbitration system (1) includes: a main manager (21) configured to receive one or more requests from a plurality of first application execution units (11a, 11b, 11c) and to determine a request for operating a predetermined on-vehicle device based on the received one or more requests and a predetermined rule; and a plurality of sub-managers (23a, 23b, 23c, 23d) respectively configured to arbitrate the request determined by the main manager (21) and a request input from at least one second application execution unit (22a, 22b, 22c, 22d, 22e, 22f, 22g) that is different from the plurality of first application execution units (11a, 11b, 11c) and to control the on-vehicle device based on an arbitration result.