Meeting Minutes - 2010-10-18

Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2010-10-18

Meeting called to order: 10:34 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Patrick Au (left 11:04)
Adam Ley
Brian Erickson
Heiko Ehrenberg
Carl Walker
Brad Van Treuren
Peter Horwood
Tim Pender (joined 10:35)

Excused:
Eric Cormack (unable to connect)

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

10/04/2010 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 10/04/2010.
  • No corrections noted.
  • Brad moved to approve, seconded by Patrick, no objections or abstentions.

10/11/2010 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 10/11/2010.
  • One correction noted in 4b, 6.6:
    • "[Brad] Well, you once you start think of things on customer sites, maybe" should be:
    • "[Brad] Well, once you start to think of things on customer sites, maybe"
  • Patrick moved to approve, seconded by Brad, no objections or abstentions.

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?
  • All to consider what data items are missing from Data Elements diagram
  • 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/Brad: Draft "straw man" Volume 4 for review - Ongoing
  • All: Review "Role of Languages" in White Paper Volume 4 - Ongoing
  • All: Review 'straw man' virtual systems and notes on forums:
    http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=109. - Ongoing
  • All: Add to, or comment on, the bullet point list of architecture drivers. - Ongoing.
  • All: Provide forum comment on the graphics used during the meeting; suggest "building blocks" that may be used in future:
    http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&p=257#p257 - Ongoing.
  • ALL: review / comment in preparation for upcoming meetings. - Ongoing
  • Tim: Draft matrix of SJTAG features against evolving solution options. - Ongoing.
  • All: Post suggestions for key SJTAG gateway features on the forum (Ian will create topic) - Ongoing
  • All: Post suggested draft texts for survey comments in existing 2009 Survey thread (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=83) - COMPLETE
  • Carl: Contact Zoe about what material we could obtain for our use. - Ongoing
  • Ian/Brad: Condense gateway comments and queries into a concise set of questions. - Ongoing
  • Ian: Send out Newsflash announcement of ITC Fringe Meeting and Poster. - COMPLETE

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Texts for Survey Result web pages
    • [Ian] We'll probably need to go through these quite quickly, as there's a lot to get through, and I really want to get these finished.
    • {Forum post "Follow-up User Survey (2009) Results" shared,
      http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=124}
    • [Ian] Where did we get to last week?
    • [Brad] I think we got as far as 6.7.
       
    • 6.8
    • {No comments}
    • 6.9
    • [Brad] The assessment seems correct.
       
    • 7.1
    • [Brad] I've no problems with this.
       
    • 7.2
    • [Patrick] It really depends on who you are.
    • [Ian] It could be levels of experience, or what you're trying to do.
    • [Brad] It also shows that the current implementations within the tools is adequate for some applications but not all. Some enhancements are needed for full support of SJTAG.
    • [Ian] OK, so we can add some comment to that effect.
       
    • 7.3
    • [Brad] I wonder if this is foreshadowing the need for concurrency control?
    • [Ian] Well we do mention that elsewhere, so we make can make the point and cross-refer.
       
    • 7.4
    • {No comments}
       
    • 7.5
    • [Brad] I liked this.
       
    • 7.6
    • {No comments}
       
    • 7.7
    • [Brad] I don't think you can come away with any other result.
       
    • 7.8
    • [Brad] A lot of this is driven by commercial tools or devices. As a result, we live with the ad hoc ways of doing it.
       
    • 7.9
    • {No comments}
       
    • 7.10
    • [Ian] Not much more to add here.
       
    • 7.11
    • {No comments}
       
    • 8.1
    • {No comments}
       
    • 8.2
    • [Brad] If you add a)
    • to b) you get 73% which points to a different conclusion from the one you've drawn.
    • [Ian] Yes, that's true.
    • [Brad] The majority opinion is then that embedded JTAG is felt to be less costly than external control, which is surprising.
    • [Ian] I would have been inclined to expect a perception of greater cost.
    • [Brad] I'd like to know where the concerns are with external testers in this case?
    • [Brian] Maybe this is related to field service?
    • [Ian] I could see that. We're trying to minimise the amount of kit we need for field service, so having the test gear in the product gives a through life cost saving.
    • [Brad] But you have some cost for maintaining that within the product. There are tradeoffs and we need to explain those tradeoffs.
    • [Brian] I guess people will specifically have Use Cases that they're considering. Some people may just want to apply upgrades and adding the equipment for that isn't too costly.
    • [Brad] My strategy is to get the hardware implementation in place, then the software can decide what it needs to do later. With each team, it tends to be a different Use Case that swings it for them each time.
       
    • 8.3
    • {No comments}
       
    • 8.4
    • {No comments}
       
    • 8.5
    • {No comments}
       
    • 8.6
    • [Brad] I think we got smarter here!
    • [Ian] Well, why didn't we get retrospectively smarter on the previous couple of questions?
    • [Brad] I think we may want to comment that 5% is probably a more accurate figure for the hardware question too.
    • [Ian] It's a guess, but I suspect it's a reasonable one to make.
       
    • 8.7
    • {No comments}
       
    • 8.8
    • {No comments}
       
    • 8.9
    • {No comments}
       
    • 8.10
    • {No comments}
       
    • 9.1
    • {No comments}
       
    • 9.2
    • {No comments}
       
    • 9.3
    • {No comments}
       
    • 9.4
    • {No comments}
       
    • 9.5
    • {No comments}
       
    • 9.6
    • {No comments}
       
    • 9.7
    • {No comments}
       
    • 9.8
    • [Ian] Quite a popular Use Case, even though it's one of the less easy ones to do.
    • [Brad] It's interesting when you look at Q8.1 where Fault Injection was one of the low runner; here it is a high runner. Possibly this shows that it's something people hadn't considered until reading this question?
       
    • 9.9
    • [Ian] OK, looks like "option" should have been "obstacle".
    • [Brad] That would seem more likely.
       
    • 9.10
    • [Ian] This is another one like Q9.8, so again maybe it's something that hadn't been considered.
       
    • 9.11
    • [Ian] Is this fair comment?
    • [Brad] Yes, you have the state of the board to consider and how you gracefully recover the board operation after BIST.
    • [Peter] There's also what you do with the results to get meaningful data out.
    • [Brad] OK, your preservation strategy - Do you save for later analysis or give real time feedback?
    • [Brad] There's also the question of granularity. For POST you may only want a Go/NoGo indication on a FRU, while BIST will usually require more detailed indications to chip level.
    • [Brad] We need to spend some time on education. Recovery is the #1 priority here.
       
    • 9.12
    • {No comments}
       
    • 9.13
    • [Ian] I realise there are other ways to do this, but JTAG gives you a means for free.
    • [Brad] It's a key reason for including the multidrop interface.
       
    • 9.14
    • {No comments}
       
    • Summary and Conclusions
    • [Ian] Any comment on the final writeup?
    • [Brad] I thought it was well written.
    • [Ian] OK, I apologise for the slog through this today, but I needed to get that done.
    • [Heiko] Thanks for the effort in writing all this up.
  2. ITC - Fringe Meeting, Poster
    • [Ian] I've heard nothing more from Bill Eklow on the Poster.
    • [Heiko] I think he was going to put something out today.
    • [Ian] OK, I'll see if there's any email when I get home.
    • [Brad] I think Heiko was working on the basis of something like 3' by 5' for P1581?
    • [Heiko] Well, the standard board is 96" x 48", so if it's two to a table then 48" x 48" seems right.
    • [Ian] I don't think there's anything to add on the Fringe Meeting just now.
  3. White Paper Volume 3 - Key Gateway Features:
    • {Not discussed due to lack of time}

5. Schedule next meeting

October 25th

  • [Ian] I'm proposing that, to fit round ITC, that we skip the first two Mondays in November. We have the Fringe meeting during the course of that week and I'd like a little time to sort things out afterwards and before our next call.
  • [Brad] I agree with that.
  • [Heiko] I probably wouldn't be able to make either date anyway.
  • [Ian] The other benefit is that we can avoid the confusion between European and dates for reverting to Standard Time as both will be on Standard Time by the 15th.
  • [Ian] If there are no objections, then we'll cancel the meetings on November 1 and November 8.
Schedule for November 2010:
15th
22nd
29th

6. Any other business

The motion on signal naming conventions from the meeting of May 3rd remains tabled.

7. Review new action items

None.

8. Adjourn

Tim moved to adjourn at 11:44 AM EDT, seconded by Brad.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh