Minutes of Post-Study Group Meeting, 2018-08-27

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EDT

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: http://files.sjtag.org/PostStudyGroup/PSG_Meeting_3.pdf

Brad moved to accept the agenda as proposed, seconded by Terry.

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Joel Irby (ARM)
Naveen Srivastava (Nvidia) (joined 11:11)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Brad Van Treuren (Nokia)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Louis Ungar (ATE Solutions)
Gregory Zucaro (NAVAIR Lakehurst)

By email (non-attendees):

Bill Eklow (Retired)
Heiko Ehrenberg (GOEPEL Electronics)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.)

2. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}
  • Patent slides reviewed.
    • The Amkor paper mentioned at the previous meeting does not refer to any patent and in any case appears to be unrelated to our work.

3. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • August 13 (updated draft circulated August 17)
    • No further corrections noted.
    • Brad moved to approve, Terry seconded, no objections or abstentions → minutes approved.

4. Review Open Action Items

  • {Slide 11}
  • [21.1] Brad: Supply Ian with glossary definitions used by 1687.1 for "transformation" and "retargeting".
    • No updates.
    • ONGOING.
  • [27.2] Legacy Initiative Group to propose definition for "SJTAG".
    • No updates, however this will likely be progressed as part of the ITC talk preparation.
  • These may need to be carried over to a future Working Group.

5. Discussion Topics

a) ITC Poster.

  • {Slide 12}
  • No activity on the forums so far (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=791). May be useful to take some material from the talk over to the poster, so the two can be related.  Talk is 5PM on the Tuesday so will probably precede the poster. Is the poster to be only about STAM or should also address the broader scope of SJTAG?  May need to at least highlight the difference.

b) ITC Invited Talk.

  • Joel had prepared an initial set of slides and Brad had subsequently added more to an amended pack {http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/STAM_ITC18_v0_1_BGVT.pptx - shared} and provided links to the source documents these were taken from. Some further discussion had taken place on the forums {http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=792 - shared} where further diagrams were presented and discussed.  Jeaff Rearick's 1687.1 diagram showing SJTAG overlaid on a block diagram was maybe a useful technique although there were issue with this particular diagram and Ian's FRAM example was discussed as an alternative and could support discussion of several different test strategies.  Noted that the example was drawn without board boundaries as it could be implemented on a single board or distributed across two or three.  Slides 9 and 10 from Brad's additions illustrate the interface-to-interface relationships that the are used in the example.  Slides 11 and 12 are possible less useful at this time.
  • A slide differentiating STAM from SJTAG is necessary. Possibly a diagram would help, e.g. applications are outside the scope of STAM but are supported by STAM so showing the applications as a layer supported by pillars, where STAM is one pillar might work, if other pillars can be identified, with SJTAG as a wrapper encompassing everything. However, things like JTAG Plug & Play might sit between STAM and the applications as "middleware". Venn diagram is a possibility but may not be as representative. Could be some older diagrams than can be adapted, but it would need the "old hands" to identify and locate any {ACTION}.
  • A timeline slide is also needed.  There is a timeline on the last poster, which we intended to update and could serve both the poster and the talk.
  • Ian has enquired about travel budget for NTF but isn't hopeful at this point in the year and has not heard anything so far.

6. Today's Key Takeaways

  • {Slide 13}
  • Slide needed to distinguish STAM from SJTAG and depict how it fits in.

7. Glossary Terms from This Meeting

  • None.
  • Carried over:
    • "Interface" is missing.
      • No obvious IEEE accepted definition.
      • 1687 has definitions for specialised forms: Device Interface and Instrument Interface.
      • We may need specialised forms for Software Interface and Hardware Interface.
    • 1687.1: Transformation, Retargetting.
    • IEEE 1856: Sense - "Sensor" done, Acquire, Analyze not really defined.
    • SJTAG: Discussion on forums - http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=782
    • Device - do we mean a packaged device? May be many devices in a package (1149.1 opted for "entity" in order to be non-specific).
      • Correction to the above remark: It has been pointed out that 1149.1 actually defines conformance in terms of "component" (c.f. COMPONENT_CONFORMANCE attribute in BSDL), and "entity" only pertains to BSDL where it is simply inherited from VHDL. "Device" is often used as a modifier, e.g. "device package", "device identification".

8. Topic for next meeting

9. Schedule next meeting

  • September 10.
    • Eric, Joel, Louis, Jon and Greg will all be out and Joel will also be out on 9/24.

10. Reminders

11. Any Other Business

  • None.

12. List New Action Items

  • [P3.1] - Legacy Initiative Group members to try to identify pertinent pre-existing diagrams for ITC talk, particularly any that can be used to highlight relationship between SJTAG and STAM.

13. Adjourn

  • Brad moved to adjourn, seconded by Carl.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:01 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh