Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2012-02-13

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Adam Ley
Ian McIntosh
Peter Horwood
Patrick Au
Carl Walker
Brian Erickson
Brad Van Treuren
Heiko Ehrenberg
Tim Pender (joined 11:13)
Harrison Miles (joined 11:30)

Eric Cormack
Richard Foster

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

02/06/2012 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 02/06/2012.
  • One correction noted: Near bottom of 4a, change 'present' to 'presenting'.
  • Brian moved to approve, seconded by Carl. No objections or abstentions.

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
  • All: Any questions regarding Adam's 1149.7 presentation or suggested topics for more detailed explanation should be sent to the group - COMPLETE.

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Tutorial on IEEE Std. 1149.7 from Adam Ley
    (Continued from the Feb.06 meeting)
    • [Ian] Only Tim seems to have supplied any questions, but he's not yet on the call.
    • [Ian] I'll hand the meeting over to Adam, to continue his tutorial from last week.
    • {Slides shared, starting at slide 24}
    • [Adam] Before I continue, does anyone have questions on last week's slides?
    • [Ian] I'm happy.
    • {Due to the impracticality of representing the entire transcript, the following notes only record some key data points and exchanges}
    • [Slide 24] Hotswap immunity to upset when debug interface is plugged in/out.
    • [Slide 28] Hierarchical description language 1149.7 to describe such as multi-chip modules.
    • [Slide 29] New attributes for BSDL.7, e.g. TAP_SCAN_RESET_PD: On chip pull down of reset signal.
    • [Slide 30] HSDL.7 (above BSDL.7): Maps ports at lower level of module to ports at the higher level.
    • [Adam] Are there any questions.
    • [Brad] Looking at slide 7: I couldn't see whether dot7 supports nested hierarchies - It all looks to be one level or hierarchy?
    • [Adam] Dot7 is defined as an adapter and applied at the top level of the chip. So typically applied at the die level, but it could be pushed to lower levels I guess.
    • [Brad] Referring to our previous discussion of dot7 and whether it could give us a gateway: A backplane supporting dot7 on the board.
    • [Adam] We may need to call in some better experts than me on that.
    • [Brad] I can see a dot7 to dot1 adapter at the gateway, but I don't know about passing the addressing through.
    • [Adam] It's possible that you could get a mode that passes addressing through rather than responding to addressing.
    • [Brad] Yeah, that'd support nested hierarchy.
    • [Adam] I relation to Tim's question, in that situation, yes, there does need to be some form of gateway or repeater as he termed it.
    • [Brad] ASP/LASP have issues over the concurrency of decoding needed to support nested hierarchies.
    • [Ian] Any more questions for Adam?
    • {Silence}
    • [Ian] I suspect that some questions will come up in slower time, once people have had a chance to think about some of this.
    • [Adam] Well, I'm happy to track those.
    • [Patrick] Can I get a copy of the slides please? I don't have them.
    • [Ian] OK, I'll send them.

5. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • [Brad] A dot7 to dot1 adapter at the board level is plausible but a dot7 to dot7 hierarchical gateway is questionable.

6. Schedule next meeting

Next Meetings:
20th February
27th February

7. Any other business

  • [Ian] Next week we will go through the reaffirmation of the groups officers. As we discussed previously, I'd like to see one or more volunteers to take on something of an editor/secretary role. It'll be an agenda item, but I may also send out an email on the subject during the week.
  • [Ian] As a point of interest, you may like to know that the 1149.1 group is in the process of forming the ballot group for the 1149.1-2012 revision. However, it may well be some time before there is anything to ballot on.
  • [Ian] Finally, I was going to make a forum post about the reaffirmation of officers. The most appropriate place I could see for that was in the Working Group Administration section, but that is in the private forums and I felt it was probably something that ought to visible without having to log in.
  • {Forums shared}
  • [Ian] I don't see anything in the existing discussions there that needs to be kept private, so I'd propose moving that section to the public 'SJTAG Discussions' section. I'll give you time to think about that and we can decide next week.

8. Review new action items


9. Adjourn

Brian moved to adjourn at 11:54 AM EST, seconded by Patrick.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh