Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2009-06-15

Meeting called to order at 10:35 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack
Ian McIntosh
Brian Erickson
Carl Walker
Tim Pender
Brad Van Treuren
Heiko Ehrenberg
Adam Ley (joined 10:40 AM)

2. Review and approve previous minutes

6/8/2009 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 8th June:
  • Add note that Heiko joined between these two comments:
    • [Tim] With two TAPS that maybe means 12 or 14 pins. I think that at least the pinouts should be standard.
    • [Brad] Well, I have JTAG piggybacked over fibre.

Eric moved to approve with above amendment, Carl seconded, no objections.

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)
  • Adam review ATCA standard document for FRU's states
  • Patrick contact Cadence for EDA support person.
  • All to consider what data items are missing from Data Elements diagram
  • All: do we feel SJTAG is requiring a new test language to obtain the information needed for diagnostics or is STAPL/SVF sufficient? see also Gunnar's presentation, in particular the new information he'd be looking for in a test language (http://files.sjtag.org/Ericsson-Nov2006/STAPL-Ideas.pdf)
  • Carl W/Andrew: Set up conference call to organise review of Vol. 3 - Ongoing
  • Andrew: Make contact with VXI Consortium/Charles Greenberg. - Ongoing
  • Ian/Brad: Draft "straw man" Volume 4 for review - Ongoing
  • All: Review "Role of Languages" in White Paper Volume 4 - Ongoing
  • Harrison: Virtual system exploiting Configuration/Tuning/Instrumentation and Root Cause Analysis/Failure Mode Analysis Use Cases. - Ongoing
  • Brad: Virtual system exploiting POST and BIST Use Cases. - Ongoing.
  • Ian: Virtual system exploiting Environmental Stress Test Use Cases. - Ongoing
  • Ian/Brad: Construct new question(s) for row 21 based on Brad's previous graphic. - Ongoing.
  • Ian/Brad: Construct new question(s) on gateway devices (linkers, bridges, instrumentation gateways). - Ongoing.
  • All: Review draft 2009 survey form and comment through forums:
    http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=83. - Ongoing.

{Adam joined the call}

4. Discussion Topics

  1. White Paper Review
    • [Ian] I'm hoping to kill two or three birds with one stone today: I'd like to see the White Paper move forward, in particular, Volumes 2 and 3, so I thought we could look at Volume 2, Uses Cases, today. In the e-mail exchanges last week, Brad mentioned a 'spiral development model' and since it's about a year since we last seriously visited the Uses Case discussions, we can see if we have any new perspectives, especially since we have newer members who were not part of those prior discussions.
    • [Ian] We'll take Cases as they appear on the wiki.
    • Structural Test
    • [Ian] This is probably pretty well complete. I guess it's the most established use and the one Heiko is most familiar with, so he able to write this one up fairly easily.
    • [Heiko] Yes, that's pretty much the case.
    • [Brad] Do we have a definition for MTC in point 8 of the Detailed Description?
    • [Heiko] Maybe Maintenance Test Controller or Master Test Controller?
    • [Eric] Test Controller anyway.
    • [Ian] From the context, I'd say Master Test Controller. Do we know where it originated from?
    • [Heiko] It was in the SJTAG Use Scenarios 0.2, that Brad mailed out on 17 October 2007: "MTC is our own Protocol Manager IP".
    • [Brad] OK, that was something that was shared at BTW 2006.
    • [Ian] We should get things like that added to our Glossary.
    • [Ian] Anything we need to change here?
    • {Silence}
    • Configuration/Tuning/Instrumentation
    • [Ian] We have a large introductory passage here compared to that for Structural Test, but nothing in the Detailed Description. I suspect we could move some text from the introduction.
    • [Brad] Yes, the introduction to each section shouldn't be more than a paragraph. The first three sentences would be fine for an introduction.
    • [Ian] OK, we'll move the rest to the Detailed Description.
    • [Brad] Maybe we should comment on the overlap with Fault Injection here; we've used this to make a power controller think we've had a power failure. Also carries over into Root Cause Analysis.
    • [Ian] There is overlap in a few Use Cases: There may be scope for a Venn Diagram illustration similar to the SJTAG Universe.
    • [Brad] The point here is that this is about gaining access to information in the system, rather than testing the system. We can maybe include a link to the Xilinx Application Note on the GNAT interface.
    • [Ian] If it's publicly accessible then, yes. It's possibly more accessible to people that the P1687 description of instrumentation.
    • [Brad] Perhaps we should also mention coordination with other interfaces such as I2C?
    • [Ian] I think that takes us into Alternative Techniques: Really it's the same thing, just a different way of accessing it.
    • [Brad] Yes, that the point. It's the same data registers; there are functional means of access, I2C, etc., but 1149.1 can also give you the same access.
    • [Ian] Can we say anything about tooling?
    • [Brad] Tooling needs to be aware of other devices in the chain. Aware of Chain Management requirements, fo example you don't always want power management devices in the chain all the time. Lattice have a tool for their Power Management devices but it makes very simplistic assumptions about the chain.
    • [Ian] We tend to put our power management devices in their own chain for that reason, but it's often not the best architecture.
    • [Brad] Especially if you want to try simulating failures.
    • Software Debug
    • [Ian] I think from 'Primary Goal...' onwards can be split off into the Detailed Description or other sections.
    • [Brad] Maybe we reference one of the things that Jim Webster has talked about: The TI Linking Addressable Scan Port has two additional signals. Jim has used these to pass through HRESET and SRESET to provide support for emulation.
    • [Ian] I guess that could go into Alternative Techniques.
    • [Brad] The real enabler comes with 1149.7.
    • [Brad] Right now, mostly, you need to reset to go into debug mode, so you lose all the state information of the hung board, which isn't real useful.
    • [Brad] Nexus was able to extract certain information.
    • [Adam] 1149.7 had some coordination with Nexus, but didn't really use anything from there.
    • [Adam] Dot 7 doesn't address emulation methodologies, just the means of access.
    • [Ian] Nexus could be linked in the Alternative Techniques section.
    • [Brad] The JTAG only access of Dot 7 is what caught my eye. Ideally you could have a Power PC and a DSP and the emulation tools all access through the same chain instead of having several pods hanging off boards.
    • [Tim] Does that mean the tools will have to use a standard language?
    • [Brad] Or a standard interface that we would define. 1149.1 gives you the hardware standard. SJTAG then gives you the software standard, but in a way that doesn't expose the proprietary information in the tooling.
  2. 2009 Survey
    • [Ian] As we noted during the review of actions, there has been no further progress on the survey.

5. Schedule next meeting

Schedule for June 2009:
Monday June 22, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT - Brian cannot attend
Monday June 29, 2009, 10:30 AM EDT - Tim cannot attend
  • {Adam left the call at 11:33}
  • [Ian] Is it too early to set the July schedule?
  • [Brad] I haven't scheduled out July yet.
  • [Tim] I can't make 29th June. We have a mandatory shutdown for the week leading up to 4th July.
  • [Ian] Is that a problem for others?
  • [Brad] I think the Monday following, 6th July, is going be more of problem for folks.
  • [Ian] OK we'll leave the July schedule until next week.

6. Any other business

  • [Ian] There will be some changes to the Core Group membership at the end of the month as a result of recent meeting attendances: Patrick, Carl Nielsen, and Harrison will lose Core Group membership, while Brian will gain Core Group membership.
  • [Ian] Might it be worth e-mailing a reminder if someone's attendance looks likely to lose Core status?
  • [Eric] A gentlemanly reminder wouldn't do any harm, but we should all be able to manage our own attendance.
  • [Carl] I concur.
  • [Ian] Is there any strong opinion in favour of reminders?
  • {Silence}
  • [Ian] OK, we'll leave individuals to manage their meeting attendance.
  • {Carl left the call at 11:36}

7. Review new action items

  • Heiko/Ian: Make amendments to Volume 2 to reflect discussion.
    (Other members may contribute if they find time to help)

8. Adjourn

Heiko moved to adjourn at 11:38 AM EDT, seconded by Brad.

Thanks to Heiko for additional notes this week.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh