Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2017-02-15

Meeting called to order: 11:07 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Brian Erickson
Carl Walker
Peter Horwood
Heiko Ehrenberg
Brad Van Treuren
Bill Eklow (joined 11:15)

By Proxy:
---

Excused:
---

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of February 8 minutes (updated draft circulated on 02/11/2017)
    • No further corrections.
    • Brian moved to approve, seconded by Eric. 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.
  • Ian: Email to group asking for preference between reverting to Monday slot or retaining current Wednesday slot. COMPLETE.
  • Bill: Draft table of existing standards and pass to Brad for initial comment.
    • Brad has not seen anything from Bill. Dealt with in 5b, CANCELLED.

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
  • Possible invitation for Al Crouch to talk about Parallel SIBs.
  • Python Netlists (SKIDL) suggested by Brad for discussion.

5. Discussion Topics

a. Meeting day.

  • Ian shared a spreadsheet of the returns from the email on preferred meeting day. Opinions were evenly split three preferring Monday and three preferring Wednesday.  However when giving additional weight to the  single "Only Monday" vote the balance swung that way, although it was also noted that Monday was preferred by both Tim and Michele, neither of whom have been able to join the call for some time.
  • Eric asked each of those preferring Wednesday if they'd be content to change to Monday, which they were, and then moved to make the change, seconded by Brian.
  • Brad asked how that would affect getting comments on the notes to Ian. Ian replied that he'd simply ask for comments by the end of Wednesday instead, allowing the same time for review as before.
  • Ian noted that the change from Wednesday to Monday would mean a very short gap between meetings at the changeover and proposed that we instead skip the meeting next week and reconvene on the following Monday (27th). Agreed.
  • {Bill joined}

b. Building Blocks.

  • Bill had not been able to draw up a table of existing standards, so we proposed to do this live during the meeting.
  • Bill remarked that in the context of 1149-based standards, 1149.1 was mainly component-to-component interconnects with some device level test. 1687 was optimising the component level part but was more software based. Bill felt that SJTAG was kind of a hardware level but leveraging the software based standards that are coming to fruition. Brad felt it was more software and modelling; the hardware was encapsulated by the standards that are being leveraged.
  • Bill thought that the questions for him were "What do we mean by system?" and "How do we implement the transactions in a rack based environment?"  The question was mostly on the rack level but do we play this all the way through the hierarchy?  Brad responded that there's always something at a higher level than you are looking, and was why we were trying to consider an abstraction where you look from your scope down. Bill commented that above the rack level you might something that is "the network".  Ian felt this didn't matter because at your scope you may know nothing about the network and what mattered was that you had control within your scope at the time of test. It comes down to where the control resides such that the higher level does not interfere.
  • Bill thought that may be outside our scope, but that there needed to be some kind of "TAP" that's used at the system level.  Brad considered that this really meant a "system channel", not necessarily a well defined TAP.  This could be a proxy interface like Gunnar proposed over ATCA IPMI as a remote test control interface.
  • Ian suggested that maybe we need to assume that we have the level of control that we need.
  • {Brad tried to locate an ATCA diagram that showed chassis with interconnected backplanes, multiple interconnected racks, etc., to highlight the opportunities for testing the cableforms}
  • Ian noted that there can be ambiguity in testing cables as it may be unclear if a fault is due to the driving end failing, the receiving end failing or the cable failing.  The problem was that purely passive cables can't contribute anything to the their own testing.  Brad replied that this was where reconfigurable loopbacks could be very helpful.
  • {Brad opened a new spreadsheet to collect suggestions on possible standards}
  • Ian noted that we should include interfaces that may not be defined by IEEE standards.
  • Bill suggested including P1838 as the stacked die could look very like a system. Brian asked if 1532 should be included as it was not renewed.  Ian commented that 1532 devices are still in circulation. Brian agreed that even new devices may include it.
  • Some standards were included although it was not clear whether or not they would prove to be relevant.
  • Brad proposed adding VISA. Ian initially thought it was parallel to SJTAG but then acknowledged that it could be relevant where external instruments are involved in a test scenario.
  • Bill noted that there was another group he was aware of with a collection of test related standards (SCC20).  Ian had seen this some time ago and recalled that there was a diagram that showed how the various standards they had linked together {Ian found a version of that on slide 10 of the presentation at http://www.1641std.org/1641/CATS4D/2014-2/Supporting_Materials/1636,%20ATML%20&%20S5000F%20(1_1).pdf}
  • Brad noted that there were some JESD standards for SERDES testing but they may not be pertinent. Heiko suggested that some of the debug interfaces, e.g. single wire debug should be included. Brad added the ATCA IPMI and Ian suggested the similarly I2C based PMBus and SMBus.  Peter suggested FieldBus (used with PLM networks).
  • Brad added the name of the person suggesting the interface to the table, for non-IEEE standards.
  • The current spreadsheet is available on the File Manager here: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/StandardsTable20170215.xlsx.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Building Blocks - table of standards.
  • Process for going to TTSC/Study Group.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • 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.
    • 'Priority' - may relate to 'frequency' and 'urgency' in distinct definitions.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting February 27.
  • March schedule:
    • 6, 13, 20, 27.

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

  • Brian moved to adjourn, seconded by Eric.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:03 PM EST

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh