Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-08-24

Meeting called to order: 11:10 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Brad Van Treuren
Carl Walker

By Proxy:

Adam Ley
Heiko Ehrenberg
Bill Eklow
Brian Erickson
Peter Horwood

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of August 03 minutes (draft circulated 08/07/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.
  • Approval of August 17 minutes (draft circulated 08/20/2016).
    • No corrections noted.
    • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

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
  • The Newsletter was due at the end of July 2015.

5. Discussion Topics

a. Continue PAR discussion
- Refine "Purpose" (higher level or more abstract) from the assembled bullet points

  • Ian stated the objective was to distil a high level "Purpose" from the bullet points but suspected that would not be easy.
  • {Brad shared the slides from the previous meeting}
  • Ian asked to start by looking at Slide 30, which contained the opening statement suggested by Heiko. This was a good starting point but we need to see what other key points needed to be brought out in the text.
  • Slide 29 and 28 were reviewed and the most important bullet points/phrases in each were highlighted (three from each slide).
  • Ian commented on Bill's remark from the previous call that being a software based standard was a differentiator. Brad questioned whether we should claim to be software based or model based, considering that hardware people and the "instrumentation generators" could maybe relate to "models" better than "software". Ian agreed that talking about software could make a lot of people switch off and feel it wasn't in their domain of interest.
  • Ian and Brad agreed that listing the interface standards was unnecessary detail. Ian added that some of the protocols we were considering may not even have formal standards associated with them.
  • Ian wondered if it was wise to highlight the point on "inadequacy of existing standards" as that might be seen as controversial. Brad commented that it was really that the reach of those standards didn't meet the needs of the system-level user. Ian noted that it was implied by the existing text on Slide 30 even if it wasn't expressly stated.
  • Slide 30 was replicated as slide 31 for editing, and the selected bullet points copied in for ease of reference.
  • Some rewording of Heiko's original wording was applied to better draw in the notions from the highlighted bullet points and new text was added. The text is rough and incomplete and will need to be refined further, but appears to cover all the key points.
  • Brad will post the new slide material to the forums (posted to http://forums.sjtag.org/viewtopic.php?p=1172#p1172).
  • Slide 31:
    • PURPOSE:
      • The purpose of this standard is to provide a means to seamlessly coordinate integrate component access topologies, interface constraints, and other dependencies at the board and system level based on with a common interface uniform description with that focuses on topology and behavior (as opposed to physical structure): a “black box”. This integration requires coordination between these access topologies (communication interfaces) to provide a means of routing data sets to particular destination registers in the correct time order. The primary aim of this standard is to model the board and system domains in such a way as to allow for common sets of interfaces to route the data to the target registers.
        • Seamless Access
          • system, board, device meld into a uniform description (Abstraction of “Assembly”)
          • Behavioral aspects than structural
          • treat the interfaces (access links, data links) as "black boxes“
        • Problem Domain (what we are trying to do)
          • Inadequacy of existing standards
          • Aggregation of circuit boards (w/ varying protocols e.g., 1149.x, 1687, I2C, USB, SPI)
          • Trying to create a software abstraction to the existing hardware standards
  • The revised slide pack has been added to the file manager: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/SCOPE%20DRAFT20160824.pptx.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Continue PAR discussion
    • Refine draft "Purpose".

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • None.
  • 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.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting August 31. Carl will be absent.
  • September schedule:
    • 7, 14, 21, 28. Eric will be absent 21 and 28.

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

  • None.

12. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Brad.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:01 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh