Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-08-31

Meeting called to order: 11:08 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Heiko Ehrenberg (left 11:51)
Peter Horwood
Brian Erickson (left 11:38)
Brad Van Treuren (joined 11:19)
Adam Ley (joined 11:23)

By Proxy:

Eric Cormack
Carl Walker
Bill Eklow

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of August 03 minutes (draft circulated 08/07/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Heiko moved to approve, seconded by Peter. No objections or abstentions.
  • Approval of August 17 minutes (draft circulated 08/20/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.
  • Approval of August 24 minutes (draft circulated on 08/24/2016)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

3. Review old action items

  • 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)
  • Ian: Add the previously discussed lists to the 'master' template. Ongoing.
    • Some sections need further expansion that may take time to develop.

4. Reminders

  • Consider Adam's three points (from the action from the first weekly meeting) and suggest what is preventing us from answering those questions:
    • Establish consensus on goals and constraints
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • What restrictions are we faced with?
  • Forum thread for discussion: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=172
  • The Newsletter was due at the end of July 2015.

5. Discussion Topics

a. Continue PAR discussion
- Refine draft "Purpose"

  • Before going on to main topic, Ian reviewed Michele's email (copied to the forums: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1173#p1173) {shared}. Ian felt this might be detail for the standard rather than material for the PAR but thought than some essence of it might be useful in the PAR. Heiko thought that something that indicated a focus on capture-shift-update on the right hand side of the interface might be useful.
  • {Brad shared the slides from the previous meeting}
  • Brad felt the new point went with "seamless access". New Slide 32 (copy of Seamless Access) created and bullet added. New Slide 33 (copy of Purpose) created for editing and bullet point added.
  • Ian noted that we refer to both "Access Topologies" and "Communications Interfaces" in different parts of the text.
  • Brad suggested highlighting the key words/phrases so we don't lose sight of them. Question over whether "interface constraints" was a key point. Ian would have added "dependencies" to that - they're perhaps additional detail, not key points.
  • Brad suggested that "Black Box was not adding anything. Ian agreed.
  • Ian felt that the last sentence was largely re-stating the first two, although it introduced a couple of elements not covered elsewhere. Brad re-worked the second sentence to merge in these elements.
  • Ian wondered if, in light of Michele's email, "correct time order" was the most apt phrasing, since the scan was the event that caused the synchronising after a number of, e.g., iApply operations. Brad considered that "correct time order" was still the most concise way of conveying this. What we were considering was the scheduling, ordering and application of the vectors.
  • Brad asked if we were doing the co-ordination or providing tools to aid the co-ordination. Ian felt it was the latter and the existing text did not present the notion of higher level tools making use of this aid.
  • Brad referred to the bullet lists to check that each was covered in the text. It was easy to determine this was the case for the bullets under "Seamless Access", but the ones under "Problem Domain" were more subtly hinted at, although it was agreed that they were all addressed.   
  • Slide 33:
    • PURPOSE:
      • The purpose of this standard is to provide a means to seamlessly integrate component access topologies (that follow a Capture, Shift, Update Cycle), interface constraints, and other dependencies at the board and system level with a uniform description that focuses on topology and behavior (as opposed to physical structure). By modeling this topology at the board and system level, a common set of interfaces may be used by higher level tools defined to coordinate these access topologies (communication interfaces) providing and provide a means of routing data sets to particular destination registers in the correct time order.
        • Seamless Access
          • system, board, device meld into a uniform description (Abstraction of “Assembly”)
          • Behavioral aspects than structural
          • treat the interfaces (access links, data links) as "black boxes“
          • Standardize on the right-hand side following the CSU protocol.
          • Schedule, Order, Application of vectors
          • Provide a means for higher level tools to make use of
        • Problem Domain (what we are trying to do)
          • Inadequacy of existing standards
          • Aggregation of circuit boards (w/ varying protocols e.g., 1149.x, 1687, I2C, USB, SPI)
          • Trying to create a software abstraction to the existing hardware standards
  • The revised slide pack has been added to the file manager: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/SCOPE%20DRAFT20160831.pptx.
  • The above Purpose has been posted to the forums and comments should be made there: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1174#p1174.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Continue PAR discussion
    • Review re-drafted "Purpose".
    • Revisit "Need".
    • Check Scope, Purpose and Need for consistency.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • Schedule, Order and Application of vectors.
  • Standardise on Capture-Shift-Update cycle.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.
  • Carried over:
    • Definition of "interchangeability" required.
    • 'Instance' (or a more specific version of the term) may require definition in future.
    • 'Master through Slave Mode'
    • 'Master to Master Mode'
    • Need a refined definition of "system" for the purposes of the PAR.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting September 7. Adam and Heiko will be absent due to conflicting TTSC meeting.
  • September schedule:
    • 14, 21, 28. Eric will be absent 21 and 28.

10. Any other business

  • Ian hopes Michele will be able to provide a fuller report on the TESTA tutorial in due course.

11. Review new action items

  • None.

12. Adjourn

  • Brad moved to adjourn, seconded by Peter.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:11 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh