Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-01-27

Meeting called to order: 11:08 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh Eric Cormack Carl Walker Brian Erickson Peter Horwood Michele Portolan Brad Van Treuren Heiko Ehrenberg

By Proxy: ---

Excused: Adam Ley Tim Pender

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • 01/13/2016 minutes (updated draft circulated 01/16/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Heiko moved to approve, seconded by Carl, no objections.
  • 01/20/2016 minutes (draft circulated 01/20/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Brad noted that Ian's example of a hybrid backplane was not included but the area was addressed elsewhere.
    • Eric moved to approve, seconded by Peter, no objections.

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 (http://files.sjtag.org/Ericsson-Nov2006/STAPL-Ideas.pdf)
  • Ian: Add the previously discussed lists to the 'master' template. Ongoing.
    • Some sections need further expansion that may take time to develop.
  • All - Post thoughts on what things ought to be addressed by our initial PAR, either to the forum thread (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=740) or by email to the group. Ongoing.

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
  • The Newsletter was due at the end of July. Brad probably has one topic left on his list.
  • Try to get Al Crouch on call re 1687.1 - Possibly no longer relevant?

5. Discussion Topics

  1. ETS2.
  • Michele had put the draft abstract to the ETS2 organisers. We don't seem to be required to formally submit this as it seems we need to wait to see if there are other proposals that could reasonably combine with ours to make a session. 
  • Michele has a paper under consideration at ETS but even if that is not accepted he is fairly confident of attending as the travel costs are comparatively low.
  1. Close in on PAR scope and purpose.
  • Michele had added to the forum thread (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=740).
  • Ian noted that Michele's remark in the post asking "What is SJTAG's Killer App?" reminded him of Ken Parker's comment at an ITC Fringe Meeting  that "SJTAG needs a 900lb gorilla - Cicso was 1687's 900lb gorilla" - meaning that big industrial partner can help make things happen. Michele agreed that there isn't a 900lb gorilla for SJTAG.
  • Ian was concerned that perhaps SJTAG was largely of interest mainly to relatively low volume cases - maybe high volume saw "better ways" to do system test. Michele wasn't convinced there were better ways but agreed that the number of people interested in system test was smaller than that for chip test, and suggested our system definition needed to cater for SoCs, etc.
  • Brad noted each vendor can have their own philosophy and architecture which creates problems for integration; how you can use the vendors interfaces in an embedded situation.
  • Brad commented that vendor support is often heavily oriented to the evaluation board design.
  • Brian noted that device vendors often added JTAG in almost as something they reluctantly needed to do. Michele remarked that this was ironic as it was probably the most commonly used interface for device programming. 
  • Ian felt that he needed to go through the thread and extract bullet points for easy reference, as it was becoming difficult to parse quickly {ACTION}. Ian would need others to validate the list, to avoid omissions or personal bias.
  • Brad felt there was a common theme, that the representation needed to be in an abstract form, and the problem with 1149.5 and others was that they had too narrow a focus. We need to overlay on existing physical layers, which we can't dictate, but how to use it can be dictated by SJTAG.
  • Ian will add the bullet list into the thread. Updates can added later, as needed.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Close in on PAR scope and purpose (continued).

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • Avoid too narrow a focus by keeping representations abstract (particularly for PAR scope and purpose).
  • Can't dictate the physical layers but can dictate how they are used (particularly for PAR scope and purpose).

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.
    • 'Instance' (or a more specific version of the term) may require definition in future.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting February 3, 2016, 11:00 AM EST.
    • Michele may be late joining.
  • February schedule:
    • 3, 10, 17, 24.

10. Any other business

  • VTS Invited Talk.
  • Bill had again been in touch about an invited talk at VTS. Michele had already checked that he could travel and was happy to present on our behalf.
  • The format is 20 minutes - 15 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for Q&A. Michele thought that was maybe enough time for 15-18 slides, of which at least 7 would be "SJTAG" and the rest could use his engine as example.
  • The initial task is to provide Bill with a title for the talk. Ian wondered if it would actually be beneficial to omit "SJTAG" from the title. Michele felt that the short abbreviation maybe didn't tell people much anyway.
  • Ian: "Leverage existing test standards for system test".
  • Brad commented that we were trying to address how you integrate all the standards to work fairly together. 
  • Michele suggested "System level coordination or unification" could fit into a title.
  • Brad: "Unifying the system test environment".
  • Michele: "A unified system test environment" (more typical wording).
  • Brad noted that we're transforming behaviours into a common toolset. In an abstract perspective, it's like normalising data so you can compare like with like.
  • Ian: "Unifying test standards for the system test environment".
  • Michele: "Heterogeneous standards..."
  • Michele felt that 'coordination' was a better word than 'unification' s it didn't imply changing anything. 
  • Michele: "Coordinating heterogeneous DFT at the system level".
  • Ian would like to highlight the use of existing standards, but that needed be something in the title. Being able to use a sub-title would be helpful though!
  • Michele agreed that a catchphrase could be better at pulling people in. May be an option to have a small abstract in the program to describe more of the talk's content. As an invited talk, Ian felt that less formal type of title may be OK.
  • Brad: "Standards: Can they co-exist?"
  • Brian: "Playing nice in the system level sandbox".
  • Michele liked the use of "co-exist". Ian agreed but felt that 'system' and 'test' needed to appear.
  • Ian: "Standards: Can they co-exist for system level test?"
  • Michele: As an open question - "How many standards can co-exist in system test?"
  • Ian felt that Michele maybe had greater say in the final title as he would have to present it. Michele was happy that it should be a group decision.
  • Peter remarked that JTAG was the main interface and if you have more that one test infrastructure in the system then it can become over-complicated. Ian agreed but felt we were mainly talking about 1149.1, 1149.7, 1687, 1532, 1581, etc., at this point. 
  • Ian felt we were down to a choice from two:
    • "Standards: Can they co-exist for system level test?"
    • "How many standards can co-exist in system test?"
  • Brad preferred the first, but admitted bias. Eric, Ian, Michele agreed, so Ian proposed to offer that title to Bill, there being no objections.

11. Review new action items

  • Ian: Prepare bullet points from the PAR forum thread.
  • The PAR forum thread action is continued.

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn seconded by Peter. Meeting adjourned at 12:01 PM EST.

Respectfully submitted, Ian McIntosh