Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2008-10-22

Meeting called to order at 8:20am EDT

1. Roll Call

Brad Van Treuren
Patrick Au
Heiko Ehrenberg
Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker [Arrived at 9:12]

Peter Horwood [Excused]
Tim Pender [Excused]

2. Review and approve 10/13/2008 minutes

Not enough members available to approve. Deferred until a later date.

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?
  • Establish whether TRST needs to be addressed as requirements in the ATCA specification if it is not going to be managed globally (All)
  • Adam review ATCA standard document for FRU's states
  • Brad to contact Rohit regarding IEEE policy for interviews.
  • Brad, Carl W. and Carl N. to meet to review what is going on with hardware document later in the week (Done)
  • Ian will forward EBST/XBST graphic to the hardware guys (Done during the meeting)

4. Discussion Topics

    1. Bridge status (Carl W.)
      • Carl W. has acknowledged that he can set up future bridge access. It will be an open bridge that will be available even if Carl is missing.
      • Ian is working on setting up a backup plan for coverage when Carl is missing.


    1. Possible EDA participation (Ian)
      • Ian made contact with people in Mentor Graphics and found Mark Laing as recommended by Ian’s Mentor support people. Mark is with the PCB side of their business and seems to be a good fit for BScan discussions. Ian will know more as he talks with Mark.


    1. Revisit the current pain experience with current ad hoc hardware configurations (Carl and Carl)
      • Postponed; neither Carl Nielsen nor Carl Walker where present at the meeting
      • [Brad] What are the most difficult problems faced today by the different ad-hoc implementations in use today for system level test (and related) applications?
      • [Ian] I don't know how much of a problem it is at the hardware level, the bigger problem seems to be related to tooling support.
      • [Brad] Data source seems to be problematic (Data to be used could be located in RAM, in FLASH / file system, or may be required to be streamed into the system via a communication port when needed. Each of those cases require different treatment.)
      • [Ian] And what you do with result data is different as well? Purely external (XBST) configuration would be simpler.
      • [Brad] Differences in POST and on-demand execution of test (and other SJTAG applications) requires different infrastructures.
      • (Some additional information is covered in the goals discussion)


    1. Group's goals for the future (Brad)
      • [Brad] So far, only Ian has volunteered for a leadership role in SJTAG.
      • [Heiko] I've been thinking about this quite a bit and I don't have the bandwidth to take on a leadership role. I would be participating in future calls and SJTAG activities. I may be able to take on roles such as taking meeting notes (although I'm afraid they won't be as extensive as the ones Brad is taking) or vice chair (if we need one).
      • [Patrick] It will be difficult to find a new chairman like you, Brad.
      • [Ian] I was hoping to do a gradual transition into the leadership.
      • [Patrick] Is it possible to have a shared chairmanship? I propose Ian be the acting chair until we get solutions in the future.
      • [Brad] I would like us to discuss what we as a group want to do for the next few months.
      • [Brad] Apart from selecting a new leadership, what are our goals for things to get done in the next few months? PAR submission requires officers to be selected.
      • [Patrick] We need to defer the PAR until next year.
      • [Ian] I think we have to resolve what we are going to do with the languages issues. That is key to making everything work.
      • [Patrick] I don’t think it will take much to get a language to use.
      • [Ian] I don’t think so. We are going to have to develop a better structure of how we represent the hierarchy. This is where the EDA tool vendors can help us with the representation.
      • [Patrick] I don’t think the EDA vendors are going to get together in a conference call and get things resolved. Have we contacted EDA vendors yet?
      • [Ian] I just have a start of a contact with Mentor since we use them.
      • [Patrick] We use Cadence so we could talk with them to see if there is an interest.
      • [Ian] I don’t see any difference in the involvement of the EDA tools vendors and with the boundary-scan tool vendors.
      • [Brad] I think the hardware definition is under control with what I was hearing from both Carls. The Use Case examples seems to be under control. So I agree strongly with Ian regarding the need to define how you represent all this is the next missing piece. I think the languages to apply the vectors is not going to be as difficult as the language(s) to represent the hierarchical structure of the circuit.
      • [Ian] What resources are needed to be on board to support SJTAG like diagnostic storage and such?
      • [Brad] Both Carls would like to know what has been difficult with using the current ad hoc approaches.
      • [Ian] I don’t know if the problems really come down to the hardware we use today. It seems to come down to the tooling we have today. I guess some of the less conventional use cases perhaps don’t have the tooling support at the moment. That is one aspect.
      • [Brad] There are issues with where the data comes from. In some cases it must reside in memory. Others reside on a file system. Still others require some sort of a streaming of the data from a communications channel. Each of these are quite different in what is needed from the infrastructure.
      • [Ian] Another issue that is similar is how you save the resulting data. It is a whole lot easier with an external tester system (XBST).
      • [Brad] There are also differences between an autonomous POST test and an on-demand test as integrated with OA&M is quite different and requires a lot of flexibility in the internal software driving the boundary-scan test to support both.
      • [Ian] There also needs to be a pass-through mechanism so that an XBST process can be used in case the EBST system is not operating to be able to run external diagnostics on the system.
      • [Ian] We also may want to look at the resources we would expect in an SJTAG compliant system, such as ID numbers; storage for tests, diagnostic data, and test results; etc.
      • [Brad] We have great tools in place to help keep the SJTAG work efficient (e.g. the SJTAG discussion forum), so again big THANKs to Ian for setting all this up.


  1. Officer selection status (Brad)
    • Brad feels he should submit his resignation effective following ITC to provide time to help in transitioning to a new leadership team. Brad likes the idea Patrick suggested of having Ian take on the role of acting chair until an official vote can take place. Heiko said he might be able to take on the role of Vice Chair under Ian. Carl will look at how he can fit into the leadership roles given the changes in his current position.
    • [Brad] I'll propose Ian as new interim acting chair at the fringe meeting at ITC, but we need to have an election for officers soon.
    • [Ian] Once we become "official" and have a PAR in place, it may be easier to recruit working group membership, too.

5. Schedule next meeting

Fringe Meeting at ITC Thursday, October 30th, 10:30-12:30 PDT.
Monday, November 10th, 2008, 8:15am EST
Monday, November 17th, 2008, 8:15am EST
Wednesday, November 26th, 2008, 8:15am EST

6. Any other business

7. Review new action items

  • Ian contact Mentor Graphics for EDA support person.
  • Patrick contact Cadence for EDA support person.

8. Adjourn

Meeting adjourned at 9:24am EDT (Moved by Ian, Second by Patrick)