Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2013-07-08

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Brad Van Treuren
Heiko Ehrenberg
Peter Horwood
Adam Ley
Patrick Au (joined 11:07)
Brian Erickson (joined 11:07)
Carl Walker (joined 11:18)

2. Review and approve previous minutes:


  • Draft circulated 6/25/2013.
  • {Patrick, Brian joined}
  • Eric moved to approve seconded by Brad. 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
  • Harrison will attempt to come up with a table of use cases and their associated layer and what can be done at that layer. Ongoing.
  • Ian/All: Look for real world examples of boards that we could take through from board test to a system test implementation as a worked example case. Ongoing.
  • Ian: Draft revised generic board diagram to include features discussed today. COMPLETE.

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

5. Discussion Topics

  1. Status of Newsletter subscriber reverification.
    • There had been no change from the metrics given at the last meeting by the closure of the reverification exercise on July 1, and as a result approximately 30 names were removed from the database. There has since been one resubscription (today).
  2. Expanded discussion of Delegating Controller from System Examples slides.
    • {System Examples slide 7 shared}
    • Ian had added an expanded diagram of the Delegating Controller board to the slide pack. There were several comments and suggestions against the initial circulation and Ian had attempted to incorporate these and briefly described the changes that had been made.
    • Brad remarked that it maybe was still not clear that the microprocessor may have access to the multidrop via the bidirectional gateway. Ian accepted that and noted that there may be way to represent that, but it might not help the readability of the diagram. It was also complicated by the fact that in many cases the gateway and selector may actually be a single device, with that path actually being routed through the selector. It was agreed that it very difficult to represent all possible arrangements within the context of a single diagram.
    • {Carl joined}
    • Brad felt that the diagram did, however, capture the intent for the purposes of this discussion.
    • Replying to Ian's question on whether any features were missing, Brad noted that there was no emulation interface to the microprocessor but acknowledged that may become too complicated. In essence, the 1149.7 network to the DSPs would support emulation, and Ian was content if the feature existed somewhere in the diagram even if it was not shown in all the places where it might feasibly exist.
    • Ian was concerned about using the term 'bridge' in the diagram for fear of confusion with 'scanbridge' and asked if the were better suggestions. Adam was happy with the use of 'bridge' and felt that the term extended beyond scanbridges. Brad noted that we were moving between protocols with the devices featured here but felt that 'translator' was also deficient and concluded that 'bridge' was probably the best term presently available.
    • Ian asked is 'System Control Bus' was an adequate title; Brad felt it was.
    • Considering how to move forward with this diagram, following the OOA paradigm and applying Use Cases to see what is revealed seemed to be apt and Brad suggested that trying to take the design through the product lifecycle, applying the Use Cases appropriate at each stage, may be useful. The first stage therefore would be testing after the board is first built up, which in turn would imply an externally driven test. A question arising would be what kind of coverage can be achieved, given that we have added as much BScan as possible.
    • At this point Brad wondered if some form of template, to record assumptions, attributes, etc., as might be used in Design Pattern descriptions might be helpful. Ian asked if Brad had any suggestions for headings - Brad would take an action to prepare a draft. The group's preference was for this to be in Word rather than Writer ODT format. {ACTION}
    • Brad further suggested that it may assist if each of the devices in the diagram had an 'identifier' so that specific instances could be referenced easily. Ian would add something similar to component references (e.g. U1) against each 'device' in the diagram. {ACTION}

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting


7. Schedule next meeting

Next Meeting:
July schedule:
15, 22, 29
Brad and Peter expect to be absent over 15 and 22 while Adam expects to be absent on 15.

8. Any other business

Still no contact from Bill Eklow.

9. Review new action items

  • Brad: Propose a template for descriptions modelled on design pattern techniques.
  • Ian: Add component identifiers the the generic board diagram.

10. Adjourn

Eric moved to adjourn at 11:52 AM EDT, seconded by Brian.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh