Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2011-11-21

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Brian Erickson
Carl Walker
Richard Foster
Adam Ley
Brad Van Treuren (joined 11:19)
Eric Cormack (joined 11:24)
Harrison Miles (joined 11:28)

Patrick Au
Heiko Ehrenberg
Tim Pender
Peter Horwood

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

11/14/2011 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 11/15/2011.
  • No corrections advised.
  • Insufficient attendees for a vote on approval.

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?
  • 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
  • Ian/Brad: Condense gateway comments and queries into a concise set of questions. - Ongoing
  • All: Forward text file to Ian containing keywords from review of meeting minutes. - Ongoing.
  • Carl/Brad: Get annotated keyword worksheets to Ian by Wednesday Close of Business. - Ongoing
  • All: Consider how a keyword can be used to define the chain configuration for a given test step, and what that keyword might be.
  • Harrison: Prepare slide showing matrix of industry sectors by volume/mix. - Ongoing.

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Merits/demerits of basing our 'Dot0' on:
    - Exclusively using Test Mode
    - Chain selection and management
    • {The summary given here is not chronological. Comments have been rearranged to ease reading and remarks from those joining later in the meeting have been inserted where they best fit the discussion flow.}
    • [Ian] With the small group we have on the call right now it might be difficult to make any meaningful headway on this discussion. I also have personal reasons for being keen to close today's meeting around 11:30 if that's possible.
    • [Ian] The main items we had on the agenda probably really need a larger group that we have here, but can I very quickly get some opinions?
    • [Ian] As regards using Test Mode as boundary for out 'dot0', what do we think? Too tight a scope? Too loose? Not meaningful?
    • [Carl] It may be too tight, but I'd need to think about it.
    • [Ian] OK, interesting: I was considering that it might be too loose!
    • [Ian] What about basing 'dot0' on scan chain selection and management? Too narrow or too big an area?
    • [Adam] Speaking personally, I'm not really very interested in directing the 'dot 0' to the matter of chain management.
    • [Ian] OK, any other opinions?
    • {Silence}
    • [Ian] There's one thing I'd like to put out a feeler on: In last week's call, Tim asked 'If there was an ideal SJTAG gateway, would it be a SIB?' On the back of that, I was wondering if it would be a useful exercise to try to come up with a description of what the 'ideal SJTAG gateway' would look like and how it would behave. It might give a template to compare real world devices against. It's maybe really a question for end users.
    • [Richard] I'd be very interesting in hearing what others have to say on this but I'd need to duck out myself just now.
    • [Ian] Is this a question better put to the larger group?
    • [Carl] I think putting it to the larger group would be good.
    • [Brad] My comment would be that no one single solution will answer all the needs. There are many different requirements. In my organization different product groups have different reasons for adopting boundary scan. For some it's test, for others it's programming. What the gateway needs to do depends on the intended implementation. It's why the sJTAG, with a little 's', solutions have come about.
    • [Ian] OK, but are those maybe views partly driven by the nonideal nature of the currently available devices?
    • [Richard] I agree with Brad. It depends a lot on how far they want to go in implementing JTAG. We try to ask this of our customers all the time.
    • [Ian] OK, so there's maybe not one ideal gateway. In that case, is it worth asking what individuals find to be important - then we can see what the diversity is?
    • [Brad] That might be informative.
    • [Ian] OK we can take that question to the larger group.
    • [Brad] Another thing to think about here is the verification of the tests. How do you validate tests that are developed using external tools but are intended to be run in a embedded situation? I may need to run the tests from an on-board embedded test platform and would like to run the same tests via the multi-drop interface. That's where the difference between a scanbridge and an ASP can be important.
      [I was getting at the transparency of the gateway as it relates to testing the test suite using an external tester/development station and applying the same tests in multiple domains of the embedded environment: local board based tester performing POST and multi-drop system tester from a shelf controller or external tester. Having the gateway protocol included in the chain can change the test topology between on-board testing and off-board testing via multi-drop.]

5. Key Takeaway for today's meeting


6. Schedule next meeting

Next Meeting:
November 28th (11:00 AM EST, 4:00 PM GMT)

Schedule for December 2011:
12th, Carl will likely miss.
19th, Ian will likely miss.

First meeting in January 2012 is likely to be Jan 9th.

7. Any other business

  • [Eric] Do we do anything for DATE in March next year?
  • [Ian] Not normally.
  • [Eric] OK. I know we usually concentrate on ITC. I just wondered.
  • [Ian] We /could/ do something. It's more a case that we tend to piggy back on someone's attendance at a conference, such as when I got a slot at NTF a couple of years ago.
  • [Eric] It's some distance off yet anyway.

8. Review new action items

  • All - Give some consideration to what attributes/features they would consider essential in their 'ideal SJTAG gateway'.

9. Adjourn

Brad moved to adjourn at 11:31 AM EST, seconded by Carl.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh