Concern: MBDT and S32DS code integration difficulty

[RickYeh777]

Dear NXP team,

I would like to raise a concern regarding the current development workflow involving MBDT and S32DS.

MBDT-generated code and data structures include the suffix “_MBDT,” while S32DS-generated or manually written C code does not follow this naming convention. This inconsistency creates unnecessary integration complexity and prevents a smooth combined workflow.

Since MBDT does not support all peripheral features (e.g., Ethernet), it is unrealistic to rely solely on MBDT. A practical development flow requires combining MBDT-generated code with hand-written C code. Therefore, the tools should be designed to integrate easily rather than work in isolation.

I hope the design workflows of MBDT and S32DS (hand-written C code) can be better integrated in the future.

Thank you for your attention.

Best regards,
Rick

[mariuslucianand · Accepted solution]

Hello @RickYeh777,

Thank you very much for posting your suggestions on the MBDT Community. Your input is really valuable for our toolboxes. Could you please add more details regarding the platform you are using and the use-case? How much of your application would you develop in Simulink and how much would you develop in S32DS?

Regards,

Marius 

[RickYeh777]

Dear Marius,

Thank you very much for your quick response. I am currently learning how to integrate MBDT with S32DS-based code. At this moment:

1. I already have an automotive lighting project running on the S32K324, developed using MBDT 1.7.0. It communicates through CAN-FD.

2. Now I need to add an Ethernet UDP communication interface. Since MBDT does not support Ethernet, this second part is implemented in S32DS using the TCP/IP Stack 3.0.0 together with hand-written C code.

Both modules are already working individually, and now I need to integrate them into a single application. During this integration process, I often need to adjust the MBDT-generated code or modify the S32DS hand-written code so that both parts can work together correctly. Because of this, I have to run both the MBDT code-generation flow and the S32CT/S32DS code-generation flow many times.

The first issue I encounter is that any manual adjustments are easily overwritten when either MBDT or S32CT generates code again, which forces me to repeat small but time-consuming adjustments. This is why I raised the question about the “_MBDT” suffix—whether it is possible for MBDT-generated code and S32CT-generated code to use consistent variable names, data structure names, and even file names.

I am still learning the best practices for integrating MBDT with S32DS, and I would truly appreciate any guidance or suggestions you may have.

Thank you again for your support.

Best regards,
Rick