Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2012-05-21

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Brian Erickson
Carl Walker
Peter Horwood
Brad Van Treuren
Heiko Ehrenberg (joined 11:12)
Tim Pender (joined 11:15)
Harrison Miles (joined 11:39)

Excused:
Patrick Au
Eric Cormack

By Proxy:
Adam Ley (indicated [Adam, Proxy])

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

05/14/2012 minutes:

  • Updated draft circulated on 05/16/2012.
  • One further correction noted:
    Heading for 4a should read: Can existing system services provide the identification required by JTAG test?
  • Heiko moved to approve with above correction, 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
    (http://files.sjtag.org/Ericsson-Nov2006/STAPL-Ideas.pdf)
  • Heiko to prepare overview of proposed updates for 1149.1 - Ongoing.
  • Ian expects that this will not be in the agenda before June 11.

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Review/revalidation of Group Operating Procedures - http://www.sjtag.org/procedures.html
    • {Heiko joined and the previous minutes were revisited for approval}
    • {Tim joined}
    • {Ian shared the current Group Procedures}
    • Ian noted that it was three years since the Group's Procedures were adopted and thought it was worth checking that they were still relevant.
    • {Section 1}
    • Ian had checked against the current TTSC procedures and while there were differences they were not in conflict.
    • {Section 2}
    • Tim asked how 'Excused Absence' (paragraph 2.5) was handled in relation to core membership and the voting register. In the Procedures, and excused absence has no effect on voting privileges. For Core Group membership, an Excused Absence is treated the same as a Proxy Attendance, counting as 'attended.' The group felt that this was incorrect as there was no element of 'contribution' which is the declared basis of Core membership. Proposal made to amend text to state that Excused Absences will not count towards Core Group membership, although Proxy attendance will continue to count.
    • {Moved by Brad, Tim seconded, no objections/abstentions - motion approved}
    • [Adam, Proxy] No objections here.
    • {Section 3}
    • Brad wished clarify what was expected for the content of minutes (paragraph 3.3) as there had been suggestions to change the format to be less verbose. The procedures only require that minutes 'capture summarized discussion' which would permit more abridged minutes. Tim noted that the fuller form was helpful to non-attendees, although Ian was concerned that the effort for that was detracting from his own participation in the meetings.
    • [Adam, Proxy] I propose that even 'capture summarized discussion' may be Overly burdensome particularly if it falls to the chair. I would be satisfied with only key takeaways from the discussion.
    • {Section 4}
    • With regard to Face to Face meetings (paragraph 4.2) Tim asked if these were counted as attendance for Core Group of voting purposes. Ian replied that the ITC meeting had not been counted in that way, while Brad added that the ITC Fringe Meetings were really public meetings where the group could report on progress. It was noted though that, although unlikely due to geographical spread, a face to face meeting of the group was possible and would count towards Core membership and voting rights but the procedures as written do not distinguish between these cases. Brad and Ian took an action to draft a proposal for rewording/splitting this paragraph to be presented at the next meeting. {ACTION}
    • Ian was not sure that establishment of a quorum (paragraph 4.4) had been checked in every case, Heiko commenting that it could be difficult to track. The Voting Roster on the wiki was shown and Ian commented that the eligible membership has rarely varied in recent months and has typically 10-12 eligible voters and includes almost all the regular attendees. Consequently, any meeting that has at least six attendees will almost certainly achieve the requirements to form a quorum.
    • {Harrison joined}
    • No changes suggested for 'Conduct.' Brad noted that having the fallback to Robert's Rules was useful, while Ian remarked that he felt this was pretty much the norm for all TTSC groups: Informality by default but reverting to Robert's Rules when required.
    • [Adam, Proxy] We should at least establish a "Gentlemen's/Ladies' Courtesy" under which each speaker can expect to have the floor for some number of minutes (one or more) without interruption. Note that some groups use a "raise hands" feature in emeeting facilities so that a member can request to be recognized without speaking (so that the current speaker does not suffer interruption).
    • {Section 5}
    • Covered in earlier discussion of paragraph 4.4.
    • {Section 6}
    • No changes suggested for 'Amendments.'
  2. What is the current 'state of the art' for SJTAG applications?
    - What do current applications achieve and how do they do it?
    - Starting with a revisit to the SJTAG Proof of Concept demonstration by Asset/Firecron
    • Ian noted that this topic was an attempt to explore what could be done towards SJTAG presently, what uses could be satisfied, what was needed to achieve the result, what the limitations and problems were, etc. To start this off Ian had asked Adam and Peter if they could give a refresh on the SJTAG Demonstration from the 2006 European Board Test Workshop.
    • {SJTAG-Demonstrations-v2.ppt shared}
    • Peter described the slides (1 through 7) noting that this was based around a customer requirement, and noting that the Test manager could be any tooling from a JTAG tool vendor or an FPGA vendor tool although Asset tooling was used for the demonstration. The Firecron controller was hosted alongside a processor on the target board so was able to communicate using any the interfaces available to the processor. Diagnostic data, normally in Firecron's BVR format could be translated and returned to the original tooling for diagnostic analysis. Test run by the Firecron controller reused factory tests from the Asset tooling. Comments from the original running of the demonstration indicated interest around having a 3rd party running the vectors from the JTAG tooling.
    • Ian wanted to confirm a suggestion that while the slides showed diagnostics being performed externally they could almost as easily have been done onboard. Peter agreed that they could, using Firecron's tools. Brad asked about the level that the diagnostics could achieve and Peter stated that it was to pin level for interconnect tests and to device for scan path verification.
    • There was discussion about the loss of context when using SVF or STAPL as input from the external tooling, especially with regard to being able to conduct embedded diagnostics. Harrison suggested that it depended on whether there was 'tight' or 'loose' integration. Ian considered that it often the case that by exporting a SVF or STAPL file from one tool the user had often forced a loose integration. Ian observed that in order to support embedded diagnostics then some form of design data must also be loaded to the UUT, and Peter responded that the Firecron controller could be operated under the control of the processor which could presumably run Firecron's tools given the relevant design data.
    • Harrison found the slides to be useful in they started to reveal the first 'onion layer' of the requirements, and Brad noted that this discussion had highlighted the need for openness between tool vendors and integrators:
    • [Brad] If SJTAG can provide a definition of what information is needed for in-system diagnostics and an interface to share such information, then we have done the industry a service.
    • As time had run out, Peter closed by noting that during BTW live hardware was shown running the demonstration.
    • [Adam, Proxy] My thanks to Peter for taking the ball on this in my absence!

5. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • There needs to be a 'open' means of describing and exchanging information required for diagnostics that can be shared by tool vendors and system integrators.
  • [Adam, Proxy] Here are some takeaway's from my perspective:
    • in the general case, only the source of test vectors (the Test Manager) understands the true/full significance (intent) of a given test step.
    • thus, without the expression of that test intent in the embedded environment, even where design information is embedded, it is difficult to achieve diagnostics than fail calls (where the fail was detected) and stuck syndromes.

6. Schedule next meeting

Next Meeting:
June 11.
(No meeting on May 28 due to Memorial Day or June 4 due to UK Holiday).

June schedule:
18, 25

7. Any other business

None.

8. Review new action items

  • Brad/Ian to prepare proposed revision to text of paragraph 4.2 of the Group Procedures for review at next meeting.

9. Adjourn

Tim moved to adjourn at 12:22 PM EDT, seconded by Brian.

Thanks to Heiko for providing additional notes this week.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh