Minutes of P2654 Working Group Meeting No.122, 2021-09-13

 Meeting called to order:  11:07AM EDT

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: 
http://files.sjtag.org/P2654WG/P2654_Meeting_122.pdf

The cumulative reference pack is located here: http://files.sjtag.org/P2654WG/P2654_Reference_Pack.pptx (updated Dec 31, 2020)

iMeetCentral site: https://ieee-sa.imeetcentral.com/sjtag-sg/ 

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo) (chair)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Heiko Ehrenberg (GOEPEL Electronics)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Peter Horwood (Digital Development Consultants Ltd)
Joel Irby (AMD)
Richard Pistor (Curtiss-Wright)
Brad Van Treuren (VT Enterprises Consulting Services)
Louis Ungar (A.T.E. Solutions)
Carl Walker (Cisco)

Guests:
---

Excused:
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Tom Thompson (for IEEE)

2. Agenda

  • Eric moved to accept the agenda, seconded by Brad, no objections.

3. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-10}
  • Patent and Copyright slides reviewed without comment.

4. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 11}
  • Meeting #121, August 30 (draft circulated August 30)
    • No corrections noted.
    • Brad moved to approve, Heiko seconded, no objections or abstentions → minutes approved.

5. Review Open Action Items

6. Inter-group Collaboration

  • {Slide 13}
  • Nothing to note.  ITC Special Sessions are in preparation.

7. Discussion Topics

7 a) P2654 C4 Model - Review diagram changes

  • {Slide 14}
  • Eric needs to familiarise with the work Brad has done recently.
  • Brad presented the latest updates to the C4 model diagram set. The following are brief notes only.
  • There higher level diagrams that are yet to be prepared.
  • Board Level Composition - Aims to illustrate the packaging of "Test Steps" into "Test Suites" which then be run by the test sequencer of your choice.
  • Board Level Integration - Constraints Model Repository provides for "human input" where essential criteria or characteristics are not determinable solely from CAD data.  We need to allow constraints to be set, but is the method something we define within the standard or can that be left to test software tool providers to implement their own way of doing that?
  • Cluster tests - perhaps this is too loose a category? Could be automatically generatable from device models (e.g. logic gate truth tables) at one extreme or something entirely hand written and akin to being a functional test of a device or sub-system within the board. 
  • Does the board level diagramming perhaps scale up to represent, e.g. a system? No, a system will look more like the FCT case as there's much less opportunity for ATPG.
  • "DSL" is used as a catch-all to cover any board test tool language (e.g. CASLAN, JFT, Macro, Tcl, etc.) used to create test applications. In many cases, these equate to IDEs and the diagram is more explanatory version of the previous abstraction that represented Test Engineer → IDE → Local Repository.
  • Are sub-assembly vendors expected to provide test repositories for their products? That would be a good idea, and we would need to define some format for that to be provided.
  • Does a mezzanine look like device (at least sufficiently so that the C4  Model can threat them the same)?  It would seem that it should, in which this may be something that needs to be noted in the standard.
  • Board Level Integration - this should be showing that constraints will need to be applied, to be consistent with the Board Level Composition diagram.
  • PTPG is a lot like FCT, similar IDEs - but this is still WIP.
  • Board Level Composition - Test tooling will likely not have access to the (more global) Board Test Repository so will use the Local Repository. But this then implies that the Board Test repository should not be shown supplying test steps to the Frameworks. Instead, these should go to the Local Repository and then from there to the Frameworks.

8. Any Other Business

  • {Slide 15}
  • None.

9. Glossary: 

  • None.
  • Carried over:
    • PTPG - Programmable Test Pattern Generator/Generation
    • Better define structural test boundary vs functional test
    • Transfer module/library
    • Injection transfer module/library
    • RVF Message (to be refined)
    • RVF Command (to be refined)
    • "Tooling" - need to be clear on what is meant.
    • "True System".
    • Comment that "End-User" is subject to perspective and so needs to be qualified.
    • ModelPoint.
    • System Element.
    • System Resource.
    • 'System' needs the concept of a controller capability added.
    • "Filtering" may need to be defined.
    • "Translation" may need to be defined.
    • "Interface" is missing.
      • No obvious IEEE accepted definition.
      • 1687 has definitions for specialised forms: Device Interface and Instrument Interface.
      • We may need specialised forms for Software Interface and Hardware Interface.
      • "Interface" is overloaded and requires disambiguation.
    • 1687.1: Transformation.
    • IEEE 1856: Sense - "Sensor" done, Acquire, Analyze not really defined.
    • Device - do we mean a packaged device? May be many devices in a package. "Device" is often used as a modifier, e.g. "device package", "device identification".
    • Use Case Context, Application Context
    • Legacy Infrastructure, SJTAG Infrastructure (placeholders for now, really for working group to define).
    • "Generators": May need to be qualified as "Test Generators" (used by the integrator/tester) and "Model Generators" (used by IP providers, interface designers, etc.).
    • AccessLink and DataLink descriptions will need to be revised.
    • See P1687.1's definitions on Slide 31 of the pack presented by Jeff Rearick on Jan 14, 2019.
    • "State", "Vector", "Sequence" and "Pattern" as proposed at April 8, 2019 meeting.
    • "Event", "Access Interface" as proposed at April 15, 2019 meeting.
    • 'Port' needs to be developed.

10. Takeaways:

  • Identify where constraints may need to be applied. 

11. Schedule next meeting

  • September 20, 2021

12. Topic for next meeting

  • Resume review of standard draft
    • Where does P2654 fit in the foodchain

13. Reminders

14. List New Action Items

  • None.

15. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Brian.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:02 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh