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)

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
  • 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,
    • [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:

6. Any other business

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

7. Review new action items


8. Adjourn

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

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh