Resources to understand functional groups in S32 Design Studio for S32 platform IDE

[Hareesh_S]

Hello,

I am looking to understand the utility offered by functional groups in the S32DS IDE. So far I have always used the default functional group and configured all my peripherals and pins in the same group, but would like to know if there is an other suggested approach to do the same.
I have tried changing the name of the functional group and ran into errors as well.

Is there any documentation detailing the usage of this feature or examples that utilize multiple functional groups?

[PavelL]

Hello @Hareesh_S ,

Functional groups allow you to define alternative configurations for pins and peripherals within the same project. This can be useful for switching between different application modes or hardware revisions. While using the default group is common, multiple groups can help organize configurations more cleanly.

There are some naming constraints when creating or renaming functional groups, especially between the Pins Tool and Peripherals Tool. If the naming convention is not followed, code generation errors may occur.

Although official documentation is limited, the following NXP Community threads provide helpful insights and examples:

• S32DS function group overview
• Parallel peripheral configuration
• Functional group naming issues
• Port Container and group naming

Best regards,

Pavel

[Hareesh_S]

Hello @PavelL ,

Thanks for the getting back. I am now stuck in a predicament and am not sure if I am approaching this the right way.

For reference, I am using S32S 3.6.3 (Windows 11) and S32K3 RTD6.

In my Pins tools, I have two groups, namely "PortContainer_0_CAN0" and "PortContainer_1_CAN1" (for example).

Each functional group has a unique set of configured pins.

In my peripherals tool, I have two groups called "ABC" and "DEF" respectively.

I am trying to add one instance of "Siul2_Port" in each peripheral functional group, with each configured to "PortContainer_0" and "PortContainer_1" respectively, but both Siul2_Port instances get added to one functional group. If I move the duplicate Siul2_Port to the other functional group, both are then set to the same PortContainer. Not sure what I'm doing wrong.

Would you be willing to provide a dummy example .mex of how this feature is expected to be used? I took a glance at the configuration tool in MCUXpresso, and there does not seem to be the concept of a PortContainer there but the same "BOARD" terminology is seemingly used in S32DS, which has thrown me in a loop.

[PavelL]

Hello @Hareesh_S ,

Based on your description, it seems the issue may be related to the naming convention between the Pins Tool and Peripherals Tool. For each peripheral functional group (e.g. ABC, DEF), the corresponding Pins Tool group must be named using the format:

PortContainerName_PeripheralFunctionalGroupName

So if your peripheral group is ABC, and you want to use PortContainer_0, the Pins Tool group should be named:

PortContainer_0_ABC

This naming is required for the code generator to correctly associate the Siul2_Port instance with the right pin configuration. If the names don't match this pattern, the tool may merge or overwrite configurations unexpectedly.

Unfortunately, I do not currently have a ready-made .mex example demonstrating this setup.

However, the previously shared following NXP Community threads may help clarify the expected usage.

Best regards,

Pavel

[Hareesh_S]

Hello @PavelL ,

1) I have made a typo in my previous comment which has led to some unintended confusion. "ABC" and "DEF" were meant to be CAN0 and CAN1. I was initially trying to abstract away the names for the example but decided not to midway through typing the comment. Apologies for the confusion.

2) I believe I have sorted out the naming convention issue by disabling SyncFunctionalGroups and setting ComponentGenerationMethod to FunctionalGroups in the global settings (Though I do not fully understand what ComponentGenerationMethod is doing), as well as adding a prefix to the functional group names in the peripherals tool

3) I am now facing an issue with IntCtrl_Ip configuration. I have one instance of IntCtrl_Ip in each functional group., but only the IntCtrlConfig from one of the functional groups is being generated.

I have made a test project with minimal setup and main() to highlight the issue I am facing & the approach I have taken so far. Would you mind checking where I have gone wrong/misunderstood the concept? I have gone through the forum posts you've shared but I'm not able fully infer how to set it up.

[PavelL · Accepted solution]

Hello @Hareesh_S ,

Thank you for the update and for preparing a minimal test project - that’s very helpful.

You're correct that SyncFunctionalGroups and ComponentGenerationMethod = FunctionalGroups are key settings when working with multiple functional groups. The ComponentGenerationMethod setting ensures that separate configuration structures are generated per group, rather than a single global one.

Regarding the issue with IntCtrl_Ip: based on your description, it seems that only one IntCtrlConfig structure is being generated, even though you have separate instances in each group. This may be due to a limitation in the tool or a naming conflict.

Could you please share the .mex file of your test project so we can review the setup and confirm whether this is a tool limitation or a configuration issue?

Best regards,

Pavel

[Hareesh_S]

Hello @PavelL ,

I've uploaded the complete project, including the .mex for your reference.

[PavelL]

Hello @Hareesh_S ,

I apologize for late reply.

Thank you for sharing you test project - it helped a lot.

I found out that IntCtrl_Ip doesn't support Functional Groups. That's why the 2nd configuration has not been created.

Best regards,

Pavel

[Hareesh_S]

Hello @PavelL ,

No worries.

Thank you for the clarification. I will add all interrupt configurations in one functional group in that case. I am assuming that is how it is meant to utilized then.

With regards,
Hareesh