<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>S32KのトピックRe: Is using one FCCU pin enough for ASIL D?</title>
    <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/S32K/Is-using-one-FCCU-pin-enough-for-ASIL-D/m-p/2360887#M58377</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.nxp.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/258585"&gt;@haythemLtifi&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;S32K3xx is a SEooC, therefore ASIL‑D applies to the complete system, not just the MCU.&lt;BR /&gt;ASIL‑D is possible with a single FCCU EOUT signal; however, this introduces a latent fault scenario on the safety path (e.g. the pin stuck at “no fault” due to a short to GND or VDD, depending on polarity).&lt;BR /&gt;Referring to the FMEDA (SM3.FCCU_MON), the justification assumes a high diagnostic coverage (~99%). This requires external monitoring, typically implemented by the SBC (e.g. FS26). When both FCCU EOUT signals are used and monitored in a bi‑stable (or fault‑toggle) configuration, the SBC can achieve the required diagnostic coverage. as it detects stuck‑at and line faults structurally. In contrast, when using a single FCCU signal, additional independent mechanisms are required to reach the same level of coverage.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Daniel&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 06:18:47 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>danielmartynek</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-05-06T06:18:47Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Is using one FCCU pin enough for ASIL D?</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/S32K/Is-using-one-FCCU-pin-enough-for-ASIL-D/m-p/2360385#M58361</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;hello ,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was wondering if using one FCCU pin is enough for the ASIL D or i have to use both?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I found this table in one of the presentation so i belive one pin is enough.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="haythemLtifi_0-1777974700032.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.nxp.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/384325iD2072D0E7FF35D32/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="haythemLtifi_0-1777974700032.png" alt="haythemLtifi_0-1777974700032.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also in case of the S32K3 MCU , does it support one FCCU pin or it has to be in pair bi stable ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;i found this in the application note AN14068 page 25 but its not clear to me :&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;FCCU monitoring by pair (bi-stable protocol)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When connected to the S32K3 MCU FCCU_ERR0 and FCCU_ERR1 pins, the FCCU1 and FCCU2 input&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;pins must be configured by pair to work in bi-stable protocol by default. This configuration cannot be changed&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;because the S32K3 only supports this protocol. The FCCU pins' polarity and the SBC reaction upon a fault can&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;be changed nonetheless.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The default settings for FCCU pins are configured as below:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;• FCCU1 = 0 or FCCU2 = 1 is considered as a fault (can be reversed using FCCU12_FLT_POL bits)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;• When a fault occurs, the impact can be configured on RSTB, FS0B, and LIMP0 (using FCCU12_[RSTB/&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;FS0B/LIMP0]_IMPACT)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thank you&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:51:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/S32K/Is-using-one-FCCU-pin-enough-for-ASIL-D/m-p/2360385#M58361</guid>
      <dc:creator>haythemLtifi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-05T09:51:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Is using one FCCU pin enough for ASIL D?</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/S32K/Is-using-one-FCCU-pin-enough-for-ASIL-D/m-p/2360887#M58377</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.nxp.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/258585"&gt;@haythemLtifi&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;S32K3xx is a SEooC, therefore ASIL‑D applies to the complete system, not just the MCU.&lt;BR /&gt;ASIL‑D is possible with a single FCCU EOUT signal; however, this introduces a latent fault scenario on the safety path (e.g. the pin stuck at “no fault” due to a short to GND or VDD, depending on polarity).&lt;BR /&gt;Referring to the FMEDA (SM3.FCCU_MON), the justification assumes a high diagnostic coverage (~99%). This requires external monitoring, typically implemented by the SBC (e.g. FS26). When both FCCU EOUT signals are used and monitored in a bi‑stable (or fault‑toggle) configuration, the SBC can achieve the required diagnostic coverage. as it detects stuck‑at and line faults structurally. In contrast, when using a single FCCU signal, additional independent mechanisms are required to reach the same level of coverage.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Daniel&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 06:18:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/S32K/Is-using-one-FCCU-pin-enough-for-ASIL-D/m-p/2360887#M58377</guid>
      <dc:creator>danielmartynek</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-06T06:18:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

