Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2015-03-30

Meeting called to order: 11:07 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Brian Erickson
Eric Cormack
Carl Walker (left 11:43 AM)
Tim Pender
Brad Van Treuren
Bill Eklow
Peter Horwood (joined at 11:20 AM)

Excused:
Adam Ley
Michele Portolan
Heiko Ehrenberg

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

3/23/2015 minutes (draft circulated 3/23/2015):

  • No corrections noted;
  • moved to approve by Brad, second by Bill;
    • No objections or abstentions -> minutes approved.

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.
  • Ian: Add an I2C sensor connected to the uP on the "Illustrative SJTAG infrastructure" diagram. COMPLETE
  • All: Review the draft Green Paper titled "A Tale of Two Domains: Preprocessed Tests vs. Interactive Configuration" and submit corrections / suggestions via the email reflector or directly to Brad. COMPLETE

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

5. Discussion Topics

a. Green Paper feedback and Newsletter.

  • Green Paper
  • {Marked up Green Paper shared}
  • This contained the corrections and query points identified by Ian and Michele. Brad had made a number of additional updates in a re-draft sent out shortly before the meeting {shared}, but this did not highlight the changes.  Brad talked the group through the main amendments.
  • There was debate over the correct citation to use for reference 4, as Brad's guidance was apparently different from Michele's and the hyperlinks were failing on the IEEE Explore site during the call.  For the time being, note only that the citation needs to be checked/amended.
  • Ian will extract the changes from Brad's update and apply them to the draft on the website {ACTION}.
  • Brad will send Ian the images for the figures {ACTION}.
  • Newsletter
  • {Draft newsletter shared}
  • Basically the main item is the abstract and first part of the first section of the Green Paper with Figure 1 moved a little higher up to break up the page.
  • Edits from the Green Paper will need to be copied across.
  • Brad asked if the images of Ian and Heiko in the 'From the Chair' section could be spaced to improve the appearance and better use the space to the left of the column. Ian said this would not be a problem.
  • There were no further suggestions.  Tim has still to read through it.  It doesn't get issued until after the Green Paper is published so there is still time for further amendments.

b. Revisit draft PAR statements - continuation, inferences from ITEA Journal item.

  • Infrastructure Diagram:
  • {Ian shared "Illustrative SJTAG infrastructure" diagram, with additional I2C sensor}
  • The diagram is now about as busy as the current format will allow.
  • Since it was Bill that originally asked about a diagram, Ian asked if this was what he was looking for. Bill said is possibly was but he was equally interested in a "system", a whole set of modules, and this appeared to be a single board - perhaps a 'system on a board'.
  • Ian said that the clues that this was part of a larger system were the multidrop and the reference to a 'System Bus'. Brad added that the other thing missing was the potential for mezzanines, so there was a layer below as well as a layer above, but the intention originally had been to resolve the board level issues first and then approach the other levels.
  • {Carl left}
  • Identify the Use Cases first: They could span boards. Ian considered that in such cases the access and test methods would remain effectively the same and only the geographical addresses would change, although for clarity of understanding there remained a need for the multi-board and mezzanine diagrams.
  • Ian felt that the multi-board case may be the more challenging to describe: Perhaps that is possible is to cover the interconnect of IO between boards, otherwise it is more about the management of board level tests. Brad agreed with that for externally run tests, but also believed that some mezzanine cases could be very complex.
  • A mezzanine may look no different from a board: Solve for the board and the mezzanine is also solved and there can be a 'Dot' standard to cover the interface between a parent and child.
  • The gateway could be removed and the selector presented at the board edge (for a mezzanine).
  • Bill was OK with keeping focus on a board but noted that he had a need to connect up a number of instrument some of which may be on the outside.  This was similar to a remark made previously my Michele, whereby an external instrument could be considered as just another interface to some higher level controller.
  • Ian mentioned that it can also be the case that some testing may need to be done a partial system or that a system may need to be tested in a different configuration to how it left the factory. Brad agreed that systems can evolve over time and there is a need to identify sub-systems of a test that allow for such growth.
  • Instruments are generally used in an aggregate fashion by application software. It is helpful if they can be accessed in a non-intrusive manner to support testing without disrupting the normal function.

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • Identify sub-systems of test that allow for growth.
  • External instruments are just another interface.
  • Ability to access instruments in a non-intrusive manner is a potential value-add.

7. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.

8. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting April 6. Eric and Peter will be absent.
  • April schedule: 13, 20, 27.

9. Any other business

  • ITC: Nothing to add.

10. Review new action items

  • Ian: Apply Green Paper updates to draft on website.
  • Brad: Supply Ian with copies of figures for Green Paper (to home email address).

11. Adjourn

Moved to adjourn by Brian, second by Eric. Meeting adjourned at 12:09 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh