Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-11-09

Meeting called to order: 11:20 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Brad Van Treuren
Brian Erickson

By Proxy:
Peter Horwood

Heiko Ehrenberg
Carl Walker

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of October 26 minutes (draft circulated on 10/26/2016)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

  • Approval of November 2 minutes (draft circulated on 11/02/2016)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

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.

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 2015.

5. Discussion Topics

a. Enumerate our requirements
- What are we trying to implement?
- Review previous Key Takeaways for relevant ideas - continue from row 60

  • The intent was to continue with the breakdown of the Key Takeaways.
  • {Brad shared the Key Takeaways and the Requirements worksheets}
  • Row 60 followed on from last week's point of being able to store the TAP state, in this case considering control of setting a state. Brad commented that this should not be an issue for 1687's SIBs since the state of a SIB will always be in sync when you enter it and when you leave it. Ian thought that Peter's point was to contrast other linkers with that, when the state may not be predictable.
  • [Peter, by email] That the SIB would not need the requirement however other Gateway / Linker solutions providing a more controllable system solution, knowledge of the state would be a useful.
  • Regarding TCK gating (row 62) Brad considered that it appropriate that we assume that TCK is free running and pass it through any linking devices but the actual behaviour will ultimately be dependent on what the controller is doing and we should not try to dictate that.
  • Rows 63 and 64 dealt with hardware aspects and could really only be considered recommendations. It is useful that any termination on TCK should provide some footprint capacity to allow for one or two additional components should signal quality issues be encountered.  Terminations and pulls cannot be prescribed as these are highly dependent on the point of application (board edge, system edge, etc.) and the topology of the design in question.
  • In any case, these are specific to JTAG and should appear in a section of the standard specific to the JTAG Port. 
  • The group reached Row 64 of Ian's sheet. There were no further context notes beyond this, so this seemed a good point to break. Ian will add more notes before the next meeting {ACTION}.
  • The updated version of Brad's Requirement Excel file is available here: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/SJTAG%20Requirement%20List%2020161109.xlsx.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Enumerate our requirements - continued
    • What are we trying to implement?
    • Review previous Key Takeaways for relevant ideas - continue from row 65.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.
  • Carried over:
    • Definition of "interchangeability" required.
    • 'Instance' (or a more specific version of the term) may require definition in future.
    • 'Master through Slave Mode'
    • 'Master to Master Mode'
    • Need a refined definition of "system" for the purposes of the PAR.
    • 'Priority' - may relate to 'frequency' and 'urgency' in distinct definitions.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting November 23.
    • As ITC is next week, the group decided to cancel the November 16 meeting.
  • November schedule:
    • 30.

10. Any other business

  • Ian will use the extended interval to the next meeting to apply forum and wiki software updates.
  • Ian hopes Michele will be able to provide a fuller report on the TESTA tutorial in due course.

11. Review new action items

  • Ian: Add further "context" notes to the Key Takeaways sheet.

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Brian.
  • Meeting adjourned at 11:58 AM EST

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh