Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2008-07-28

Meeting was called to order at 8:20am EDT

1. Roll Call (Participants):

Brad Van Treuren Carl Nielsen
Carl Walker
Peter Horwood
Heiko Ehrenberg
Ian McIntosh
Tim Pender (joined at 8:31am)

Excused absenses:
Jim Webster

2. Review and approve minutes

7/16/2008 minutes approved (Ian moved, Carl W. second)

3. Review old action items:

  • Adam proposed we cover the following at the next meeting:
    • Establish consensus on goals and constraints
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • What restrictions are we faced with?
  • Establish whether TRST needs to be addressed as requirements in the ATCA specification if it is not going to be managed globally (All)
  • Register on new SJTAG web site ( http://www.sjtag.org/) (All)
  • Look at proposed scope and purpose from ITC 2006 presentation and propose scope and purpose for ATCA activity group (All)
  • Adam review ATCA standard document for FRU's states

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Presentation on SJTAG interfaces (subset of BTW2006 presentation)
    • [Brad] Primarily slides 5-14 from the slide set link below:
      http://www.molesystems.com/BTW/material/BTW06//BTW06%20Presentations/BTW2006-Van-Treuren.pdf
    • [Brad] reviewed aforementioned presentation to start discussion on SJTAG language requirements (Highlights follow):
      • slides 5, Static ordered set of vectors vs. Dynamically created set of vectors (Applications differ)
      • 6, Functions for each BScan Device enabled by bit patterns (vectors)
      • 7, We lose the function purpose when using vector based languages
      • 8 (concept could be extended to dynamic set of vectors mentioned on slide 5),
      • 9 (trying to identify boundaries between software layers; SJTAG could define such interfaces and not necessarily the underlying code specifically),
      • 10, Too many variations at the TAP Controller Operation/Implementation to be able to standardize
      • 11 Scan Primitives have a good chance for standardization
        ("Raw Bit Bang" TAP -> [Heiko] this seems to touch on the discussions going on in the JTAG Reuse group)
        [Tim] Should these primitives also include things like ASP gateway selection?
        [Brad] That is a very good example of specialization commands that may be needed. I am not sure how to support this yet, but we have to consider it. This is why I have thrown in the Raw Bit Bang TAP as a possible catch all for non-standard 1149.1 actions to be supported, but not built-in and simple.,
      • 12 ([Tim] it might be useful to have ways to describe synchronization requirements in our language)
        [Brad] Not just synchronization regarding gateway actions (e.g., broadcast mode), but also synchronization of when vectors are applied to devices in the same chain (the function aspect)
        [Tim] There is also synchronization with the proper configuration of the chain,
      • 13, Non-scan extensions might need to be accessible by the Test Step construct at a higher level to provide some of this synchronization.
      • 14, There are different levels of control within an application of system testing
  2. Results and Status from SJTAG Survey Activity
    • great response rate (around 40%)
  3. Status and review of white paper sections
    • Section 1: Brad and Ian added some contents
    • Section 2: Heiko took Brad's additional use case descriptions and added them to the Wiki; did some rewording, converting bullet points into text, and reorganizing;
    • Section 3: Carl W. added diagrams
  4. Review proposed scope and purpose statements (sent under separate email)
    • [Tim] we need to think of what the deliverables are; IEEE 1149.5 was a system level JTAG standard, and it failed ...;
    • out of time ... discussion postponed to the next meeting;

5. Schedule next meetings:

Monday, August 4th, 2008, 8:15am EDT
Monday, August 11th, 2008, 8:15am EDT
Wednesday, August 20th, 2008, 8:15am EDT [Brad has a conflict; Carl W. will set up a different bridge number for this call]

6. Any other business

  • [Ian] I'd like to get the newsletter e-mailed out;
  • - Completed vote for release of newsletter via follow-up email. Carl N., Carl W., Heiko, Brad, and Ian voted YES to release. No other responses received. (Formally, Carl N. made the motion and Carl W. seconded it)
  • [Brad] I am unable to attend on August 20.
  • [Carl W.] I can set up a bridge if someone can propose the agenda.

7. Review new action items

  • everyone to review scope and purpose proposal (ScopeandPurpose.ppt)
  • Carl set up bridge for August 20 (DONE)

8. Adjourned at 9:45am EDT

moved by Ian, second by Heiko

Thanks to Heiko for assistance in these minutes.

Respectfully submitted,
Brad