Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2017-02-08

Meeting called to order: 11:13 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Heiko Ehrenberg
Brian Erickson
Brad Van Treuren
Bill Eklow

By Proxy:

Adam Ley
Peter Horwood
Carl Walker

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of January 25 minutes (draft circulated on 01/25/2017)
    • No corrections.
    • 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 (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
  • Possible invitation  for Al Crouch to talk about Parallel SIBs.
  • Python Netlists (SKIDL) suggested by Brad for discussion.

5. Discussion Topics

a. Meeting day.

  • Ian asked if there was interest in an alternative meeting day or time, due to the number of conflicts that were arising, e.g. TTSC has spilled over to three weeks on the last two meetings. Eric was OK for most days at the existing time except for Thursdays. Brad's time is tight and the only other time that would suit would be our old Monday slot which we vacated due to the conflict with 1149.10 although Brad noted that those meetings seemed to have stopped. Ian had been advised by Adam 1149.10 was on hiatus, possibly indefinitely.
  • Eric commented that we needed more than the group on the call to have input. Ian agreed and suggested polling the group by email. To keep it simple, the choice would be between staying with the current Wednesday slot or reverting to the old Monday slot [ACTION]. Bill would be OK with either but didn't expect the TTSC meeting to keep overrunning and they should only be quarterly anyway.

b. Building Blocks.

  • Ian remarked that the recent discussion, emerging out of the PAR text formulation, had looked at "building blocks" as the interfaces we were dealing with. However, we had previously described the primitives for White Paper Section 3 as "building blocks" (first introduced in the meeting of March 29, 2010). Brad agreed that there were probably "hardware building blocks" and "software (or behavioural) building blocks". Ian thought it might be better to refer to the former as "hardware primitives". We are currently considering the interface behavioural building blocks.
  • Ian asked how to approach this. Brad suggested decomposing existing standards with 1149.1 being the obvious starting point with 1687 second, and asked if we should decompose to the register level. Ian felt that was crossing into the domain of the standard in question and probably should be avoided. Brad then suggested either the pin interface level or the TAP controller: Using the Instruction Register for access control and the Data Register for the data transaction, although Brad wasn't convinced it could be done from the pin interface level only. Ian thought it may be more about understanding the State Machine of the interface than the detail of the registers.
  • Brad asked if we ought to be broadcasting the entire scan pattern for a chain.  Brad further noted that to really coordinate between devices you need control down to instrument level.  1149.1-2013 and 1687 may not provide enough granularity to offer that control. We may need to push things back to those standards if they can't support our use cases.
  • Brad proposed picking a couple of use cases for each of the standards mentioned earlier, and working through them to see what they need or what deficiencies there may be in our thinking, and suggested a SERDES between two devices to start with.  Assume 1149.1 to keep it simple, try with Dot 6 first then expand to an instrument based test.
  • Bill suggested going more at the "system" aspect. He felt that a lot of what was in 1687 and 1149.1-2013 was aimed more at the component and board level and not what was likely to get used in system testing. Instead, Bill proposed lining up all the existing standards in a table and setting them off against SJTAG. If and when we go to a PAR we will need that to show how we differ from what other standards are doing.
  • {Digression: Getting Study Group status}
    • Bill, Adam and Heiko can help with getting to Study Group status. TTSC has had some concerns about groups going straight to PAR, and it can lead to the appearance of being a "closed group".
    • Brad felt we were more open than a lot of groups with everything posted on the website and were open to anyone wanting to join. Despite presenting at ITC and posting surveys we haven't attracted a lot of interest.
    • Ian thought that because SJTAG has been talked about over a long time without getting to a PAR, people maybe feel we aren't doing anything. However, we've taken the hit of going down a lot of the "rabbit holes" that would have ended up slowing us down at some point before we get to the PAR.
    • Bill agreed that we have an opportunity to get to standard relatively quickly because of that. Announcing a Study Group should get people interested.
    • Ian asked if we were targeting the next TTSC to make first formal moves, around April? Bill thought that was probably the right time and noted that new people might bring new ideas so it may take time to go from Study Group to PAR. Ian acknowledged that there may be a bit of going backwards before going forwards.
    • Brad commented on the feedback to his remote presentation to BTW: A few people asked if SJTAG was going to be available soon as they needed it now, others were very quiet. Brad wasn't sure how to read it. Bill replied that it raised a lot of questions and there was interest. Brad agreed that there were more questions than he'd expected for a remote presentation. Ian added that in any group you'll have some who don't see the topic as relevant to their case, so focus on where there is interest.
    • Ian asked how we get ourselves on the TTSC agenda. Bill will make an approach while Heiko will try to determine what documentation we will need in support. Ian believed that Adam Cron was previously suggested as the source for that.
  • Brad felt there was an action item to generate a table, based on Bill's suggestion.  Bill will put together a draft of the table, maybe along with some comments and questions and pass it to Brad for initial feedback [ACTION].
  • As we did recently with the requirements list, the idea will be for someone (maybe Bill or Brad) to present and update the table in WebEx to allow Ian to collect notes.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Meeting day.
  • Building Blocks - table of standards.
  • Process for going to TTSC/Study Group.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • 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 February 15.
  • February schedule:
    • 22.

10. Any other business

  • Ian hopes Michele will be able to provide a fuller report on the TESTA tutorial in due course.

11. Review new action items

  • Ian: Email to group asking for preference between reverting to Monday slot or retaining current Wednesday slot.
  • Bill: Draft table of existing standards and pass to Brad for initial comment.

12. Adjourn

  • Brian moved to adjourn, seconded by Eric.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:00 Noon EST

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh