Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-08-03

Meeting called to order: 11:09 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Brian Erickson
Brad Van Treuren
Peter Horwood (joined 11:36)
Heiko Ehrenberg (joined 11:37)

By Proxy:

Adam Ley
Carl Walker

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of July 13 minutes (draft circulated 07/13/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Voting deferred until after Peter and Heiko joined.
    • Brad moved to approve, seconded by Eric. No objections or abstentions.
  • Approval of July 27 minutes (draft circulated 07/27/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • 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.
  • All: Comment on revised PAR Scope. Comments to be posted to the forums (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1158#p1158). COMPLETE
    • Only one comment received (positive).
  • All: Propose Aims for the PAR Purpose. Comments to be posted to the forums (http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1158#p1158). COMPLETE (for this week)
    • Some activity on the forums was reviewed and is the basis for this week's discussion.

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. Continue PAR discussion
- Review "Purpose" or Aims for the standard

  • Heiko's forum post had proposed an adaption of the first sentence from what is now the Need statement as the beginning of the Purpose statement. Brad made a working copy of the Purpose/Aims slide as Slide 28 and copied Heiko's proposed text to a new Purpose slide as Slide 29 (this was subsequently renumbered as Slide 30).
  • {Brad shared Slide 28}
  • Working through each of the recent forum posts in turn, key points and phrases were extracted, discussed and added to the bullet points on Slide 28.
  • Questions arose over "portability": Was it still an SJTAG aim and what did we actually mean by "portability".  Brad felt that portability still had to be a requirement but that it was about things like porting from a PC based environment to an embedded environment, not porting tests from one tool to another.  There was no incentive for tool vendors to support this.  Ian agreed on the latter point but noted that the SJTAG Demonstration from EBTW 2006 took a test generated by Asset, executed it on a Firecron platform and returned results to Asset for diagnosis. However this is slightly different to moving tests entirely across to another toolset.
  • {Peter joined}
  • {Heiko joined}
  • Brad and Ian summarised the prior discussions for Peter and Heiko.
  • Brad commented on Ian's forum remark that the Use Case didn't matter as this implied that there was no difference between pre-computed vectors and dynamic vectors. Peter noted that canned vectors require less resources and can generally be applied much more quickly than dynamically constructed vectors, citing the time taken by the commercial tools to create a test, adding that changing an address packet is a relatively quick thing to do.
  • Brad concluded that portability meant that the same vectors arrive in the same order at the target.
  • To improve legibility, Brad split Slide 28 into "Seamless Access" (Slide 28) and "Problem Domain" (Slide 29, moving the new Purpose text to Slide 30). Ian observed that some of the bullet points might be better moved between slides or may span across them.  Brad moved a few items from Problem Domain to Seamless Access.
  • Slide 28:
    • PURPOSE:
      • Seamless Access
        • system, board, device meld into a uniform description (Abstraction of “Assembly”)
        • Metamorphosis into a common interface description
        • A delineation between topology and physical structure (topology is more important to SJTAG) (Behavioral aspects than structural)
        • Our goal is abstracting out the differences and delegating those differences to the underlying interfaces at the same time identifying the features that are in common (e.g., addressing, access link connection, data link transmission) to be able to simplify the way tools interact with the various standards being leveraged.
        • treat the interfaces (access links, data links) as "black boxes“
        • concerned with the board and system level "routing" of control and data
  • Slide 29:
    • PURPOSE:
      • Problem Domain (what we are trying to do)
        • Inadequacy of existing standards
        • Aspects
          • the end user's perspective, control, and operation of the "networks" as a description of the topology and behavior
          • the description to the tooling what kind of access links and data links are used for a particular scan segment representing a portion of the whole configuration
        • Problem Domain may offer the context for the aims
        • we define what needs to be transacted and when, with the how being left to the standard defining the interface and the creativity of the tooling
        • use cases end up being largely irrelevant because once you can readily control and route data you can implement any use case
        • “routing” proposes no difference between the pre-computed vector based use cases and the dynamically created vectors
        • Bridging between an embedded environment and an external tool for deciphering the results (interchangeability between execution and diagnostic environments)
  • Slide 30:
    • PURPOSE:
      • The purpose of this standard is to provide a means to coordinate component access topologies, interface constraints, and other dependencies at the board and system level based on a common interface description with focus on topology and behavior (as opposed to physical structure).
  • While the next logical step would be to try to assemble a grammatical statement from these bullet points it was felt that the list may not yet be complete as the attendance on the last few calls had been low. 
  • For next week:
  • Peter asked if portability would still rely on SVF or STAPL, noting that the 2006 demo was able to return information that could be used for diagnostics; SVF couldn't do that. Brad felt it maybe wasn't an issue for bridging between external and embedded cases since we were excluding porting across tools.  In any case, SJTAG may not even be a that high a level, perhaps offering an API for the application layer.
  • The revised slide pack has been added to the file manager: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/SCOPE%20DRAFT20160803.pptx.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Continue PAR discussion
    • Refine "Purpose" from the assembled bullet points.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.
    • 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'

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting August 10. Brad will be absent.
  • August schedule:
    • 17, 24, 31.

10. Any other business

  • Ian hopes Michele will be able to provide a fuller report on the TESTA tutorial in due course.
  • Ian wanted to post something to the SJTAG group on LinkedIn to show activity and proposed posting the Scope. Eric agreed that it may stimulate some feedback. It was noted that we didn't really have a collective approval on the recent edits due to low attendances on calls.  Ian requested that everyone in the group notify whether or not they are happy with the current Scope text {ACTION}

11. Review new action items

12. Adjourn

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

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh