Minutes of Study Group Meeting, 2018-04-23

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EDT

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_32.pdf

1. Roll Call

Heiko Ehrenberg (GOEPEL Electronics)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Bill Eklow (Retired)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Richard Pistor (Curtiss-Wright)
Naveen Srivastava (Nvidia)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Brad Van Treuren (Nokia)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Dilipan Jayachandran (SEL Inc.)
Russell Shannon (NAVAIR Lakehurst)
Louis Ungar (ATE Solutions)
Sivakumar Vijayakumar (Keysight)

By email (non-attendees):

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo MW Ltd.)
Joel Irby (ARM)

2. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}
  • Patent slides reviewed; no comments;

3. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • April 16 (draft circulated April 16)
    • Brian moved to approve the minutes, Terry seconded; no comments / objections → minutes approved.
  • {Bill Eklow joined}

4. Review Open Action Items

  • {Slide 11}
  • [21.1] Brad: Supply Ian with glossary definitions used by 1687.1 for "transformation" and "retargeting".
    • No updates.
    • ONGOING.
  • [27.2] Legacy Initiative Group to propose definition for "SJTAG".
    • No updates.

5. Discussion Topics

Notes from last week's TTSC meeting:

  • STAM study group status update was presented at TTSC meeting on Wednesday (April 18); in essence, we should be able to complete our draft PAR before our study group extension expires (end of June). TTSC requires motions to be included on the meeting agenda and associated material to be submitted at least two weeks prior to the TTSC meeting; next TTSC meeting is on July 18; so we need to send a motion to accept our Draft PAR and the actual draft PAR document to TTSC by the end of June.

a) Review feedback on PAR Scope and Purpose.
Refer to forum thread: http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1326#p1326.

  • Brad shared Scope and purpose discussion on Forum;
    • Review of posts by Adam, Ian, and Brad;
    • Are we going to have a relationship between the various interfaces described in a certain way? Will there be some generic bus description? Perhaps as a kind of a virtual bus. We need to describe / map protocol transformations to define what is to be provided at the top level to affect the desired lower level stimulus / action. 
    • Do we want to focus on the C-S-U (Capture-Shift-Update) cycle model, similar to JTAG or 1687? We had some discussion on that topic and agreed that we don’t necessarily want to limit ourselves to that.
    • 1687.1 is looking at call-back mechanisms for retargetting and to coordinate intermediate blocks. Goal is to emulate direct access to lower levels from an upper level.
    • An issue 1687.1 is struggling with is whether the lowest level commands are processed one-by-one to the top and applied or all together for the 1687 retargeted action at the network level or as a batch for the whole test action. (Brad: adds complexity to interactive use cases adapting flow control based on feedback.)
  • Brad shared meeting slide set.
  • {Slide12 - headings, Slide 13 - Draft Purpose, Slide 14 - Draft Scope}
    • Do we want to (and if so how do we) incorporate the questions raised by Adam ?
      • what manner of "thing(s)" would claim conformance to the standard? (In Scope?)
      • who produces this(these) thing(s)? (In Purpose?)
      • who uses this(these) thing(s)? (In Purpose?)
    • Do we need to also consider "analog"? Scope seems to focus on "digital". Communication seems to be primarily digital, even for analog instruments (such as temperature sensors, for example); on the other hand, what about "analog summing buses" and other similar analog buses? Do we want to require subsystem designers to digitize their analog interfaces in order to claim compatibility to STAM? How would such analog buses be used for testability now (without conversion to digital)? The use of an analog bus seems to be very specific to a particular system, and that doesn’t seem to be a use case for STAM (since it is so specific to a particular system design and may not lend itself to standardization).
    • Our initial standard could focus on / limit to digital interfaces, and a follow-on standard could address analog interfaces if so desired at a later time.
    • Proposal to add “who produces” and “who uses” in Purpose an “what manner of things” in Scope.
    • Edited slide: http://files.sjtag.org/StudyGroup/SG_Meeting_32_bgvt_singleslide.pdf
  • Reference slides (not used during this meeting):
  • {Slide 15 - Draft Need}
  • {Slide 16 - Collated comments}

b. Re-visit Need - check consistency with Scope and Purpose.

  • We didn’t get to this.

6. Today's Key Takeaways

  • {Slide 17}
  • We are really driven by the application, defined by the lowest level, and we need to specify how the lower level behavior can be produced by the upper level. The application generally applies to the lowest level where ECAD retargets to the device edge for ATE testing.  STAM needs to be able to emulate that same stimulus/response produced from the ECAD tooling while the device is in-system.
  • Purposefully exclude analog buses from the initial STAM standard.

7. Glossary Terms from This Meeting

  • None.
  • Carried over:
    • "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.
    • 1687.1: Transformation, Retargetting.
    • IEEE 1856: Sense - "Sensor" done, Acquire, Analyze not really defined.
    • SJTAG: Discussion on forums - http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=782

8. Topic for next meeting

  • Continue Purpose and Scope discussion, focus on Adam’s questions.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • April 30.
    • Russell expects to be out on May 7th and 14th.

10. Reminders

11. Any Other Business

  • None.

12. List New Action Items

  • [32.1] All: consider and discuss Purpose and Scope on the forum, in respect to incorporating Adam’s concerns.

13. Adjourn

  • Brian moved to adjourn, seconded by Terry.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:06 PM EDT

Best regards,