Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-09-07

Meeting called to order: 11:04 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Brad Van Treuren
Brian Erickson
Peter Horwood
Eric Cormack
Bill Eklow (joined 11:18)

By Proxy:
---

Excused:
Heiko Ehrenberg
Adam Ley

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of August 17 minutes (updated 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.
    • Eric moved to approve, seconded by Brad. No objections or abstentions.
  • Approval of August 31 minutes (updated draft circulated on 09/03/2016)
    • No further corrections noted.
    • Brian moved to approve, seconded by Brad. No objections or abstentions.

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
- Review re-drafted "Purpose"
.

  • As there were no new forum posts, Ian proposed moving directly to the slides.
  • {Brad shared the slides from the previous meeting}
  • New Slide 34 (copy of Purpose) created for editing.
  • Ian was still concerned about using both "access topologies" and "Common set of interfaces" in different parts of the text. after some discussion Ian concluded that it was the ambiguity of the word "common" that was troubling him. Eric interpreted this as "well known" or "frequently used". Ian noted that it could imply some commonality between the interfaces.  Peter suggested "popularly used" but agreed this was perhaps clumsy wording. Bill asked if "standard" might be used. The group had avoided this since some of the interface concerned were not described by a formal standard. Brad proposed "interchangeable". Ian felt there were two distinct notions - that of 'familiarity' and that of 'interchangeability' and suggested "familiar and yet interchangeable".
  • Brad tried to break the run-on second sentence but finally concluded that it was better left alone.
  • All the bullet points appear to have been addressed.
  • "Need" was considered next.
  • {Slide 35 (copy of Need) shared}
  • Ian felt it may not be good to cite 1687 or 1149.1-2013 unless it is made clear that these are only examples. Bill re-iterated that it would be good to differentiate SJTAG from any of these.
  • Brad noted that we are leveraging their descriptions: SJTAG provides access to their interfaces while they manage the infrastructure from the pins to their network.
  • Bill noted that we also need to be aware of where 1149.10 will fit in. Ian commented that this is another standard that defines hardware at the chip level and so is distinct from SJTAG. Brad added that the retargetter software is proving difficult for the tool vendors - how do you manage what path you're talking to on a board? Most standards are assuming that the tool vendor knows how to talk to that interface and it's a bad assumption.
  • Ian commented that we are providing access to those pin-level interfaces. Brad added this as a bullet point. After some re-wording, Ian felt this worked well as a closing sentence, since it provides the answer to the problems described by the preceding two sentences.
  • Ian suggested changing "This standard aims to..." to "This standard will..." but wondered if that may be overly positive.
  • For the next meeting, Brad will pull the Scope, Purpose and Need into a smaller pack so we can check them against each other.
  • 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 set of familiar and yet interchangeable interfaces may be used by higher level tools to coordinate these access topologies and provide a means of routing data sets to particular destination registers in the correct time order.
    • NEED
      • A standardized method is needed to coordinate component access topologies, interface constraints, and other dependencies at the board and system level in order to be able to effectively leverage the existing and future component level standards. Thus, a new supervisory standard is required to define the coordination and dependencies of instruments as well as configuration, management, and application of vector based testing at the board and system levels. For example, IEEE 1687 and IEEE 1149.1-2013 provide methods for describing each of the instrument interfaces on a per component basis, but fail to provide the contextual prerequisites for the dependence on each instrument configuration and/or aggregation of multiple instruments for the overall board and/or system maintenance operations. Further, many components only support non-JTAG interfaces (e.g., I2C or SPI) to their instrumentation registers. This standard will provide a means to utilize the pin level access provided by other standards.
  • The revised slide pack has been added to the file manager: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/SCOPE%20DRAFT20160907.pptx.
  • The above Purpose and Need have been posted to the forums and comments should be made there: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1175#p1175.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Continue PAR discussion
    • Review re-drafted "Need".
    • Check Scope, Purpose and Need for consistency.
  • Agenda likely to be carried over to September 21 - See note in AOB.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

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 14. Ian will probably be absent.
  • September schedule:
    • 21, 28. Eric will be absent 21 and 28.

10. Any other business

  • Brian noted that BTW was next week and asked who would be attending. Ian expected Heiko would be.
  • Bill asked if it was still intended that BTW would join into our call. Ian thought it should be OK, but he probably wouldn't be on the call next week. Bill explained it was really to tell BTW what was going on in SJTAG. Brad will try to prepare a small slide pack. Ian and Brad will discuss offline. 
  • 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

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Bill.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:10 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh