Minutes of P2654 Working Group Meeting No.16, 2019-04-15

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/P2654WG/P2654_Meeting_16.pdf

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo)
Heiko Ehrenberg (GOEPEL Electronics)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Jan Schat (NXP Semiconductors)
Naveen Srivastava (Nvidia) (joined 11:07)
Jon Stewart (Dell) (joined 11:06)
Brad Van Treuren (No affiliation)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Erik Larsson (Lund University)


By email (non-attendees):


2. Agenda

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

3. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}
  • Patent slides reviewed.
    • No comments.

4. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • Meeting #15, April 8 (draft circulated April 8)
    • No further corrections noted.
    • Carl moved to approve, Terry seconded, no objections or abstentions → minutes approved.

5. Review Open Action Items

6. Discussion Topics

6 a) Update from TTSC meeting {Slide 12}

  • Insufficient voting attendance to form quorum, so TTSC meeting will be re-convened May 1st.

6 b) Differences between retargeting and transformation cases (continuation)

  • The definitions of 'Retarget' and 'Transform' appear to be stable for now(http://files.sjtag.org/P2654WG/Transformation_vs_Retargetting_Meeting_16.pdf) {slide BGVT 2}.
  • Some additional glossary propositions {slides BGVT 3 and 4}.
    • Event: Changes the hardware not the model, i.e. when the hardware is synced to the model.
    • Pattern: Needs to be corrected for consistency as we previously did for 'Retarget'.
    • Access Interface: Provides for control of a selected path.
    • Access Point: Node level point where a change in protocol or data structure occurs.
    • Virtual Access Point: Similar to Access Point but can only be accessed via a transformation.
  • {Slide BGVT 5} is borrowed from 1687.1 material. Use Case 1 is disputable: To be a retarget operation, the client interface needs to follow a CSU cycle, but it may in fact require a transformation. In any case, Use Case 2 is more our concern.
  • {Slide BGVT 6} proposes the title 'Request and Response Model' for the bottom-up approach and 'Discover and Conquer Model' for the top-down approach.
  • Slides BGVT 8 to 12 were presented to illustrate and explain the Request and Response Model:
    • {Slide BGVT 8} Calls are made at the instrument instance level, so PDL is written for that level of instrument resource. When you get to the top level you have physical access so there is no transformation.
    • {Slide BGVT 9} Question: What if you want to synchronise  two instruments such that both update/change state at the same time? Highlights a drawback of the bottom-up approach as it is by definition dealing with a specific instrument instance. However bottom-p may be more flexible in interactive applications.
    • {Slide BGVT 11} One command sequence at a time is applied to the Access Point. We're not concerned with the instrument here, just the Access Point. Aim is that the upper layers don't need to know what the lower levels are doing.
    • {Slide BGVT 12} 'T-2-E' - Transformation-to-Event. Example show what might be a typical top level for a board. A system may have many more levels but each level would be representationally similar.
  • Concluded at this point due to lack of time - there are still a few slides on the 'Request and Response Model' to cover before moving on to the 'Discover and Conquer Model'.

7. Any Other Business

  • {Slide 13}
  • None.

8. Today's Key Takeaways

  • None.

9. Glossary Terms from This Meeting

  • "Event", "Retargeter", "Access Interface", Access Point", "Virtual Access Point" as proposed during this meeting.
  • "State", "Vector", "Sequence" and "Pattern" as proposed at previous meeting (April 8).
  • 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.
      • "Interface" is overloaded and requires disambiguation.
    • 1687.1: Transformation, Retargetting.
    • 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.

10. Schedule next meeting

  • April 29, 2019
    • No meeting on April 22, 2019 as this will be Easter Monday and several members expect to be absent.

11. Topic for next meeting

  • Differences between retargeting and transformation (continuation).

12. Reminders

  • TESTA preparation discussion to follow after this meeting - selection of slides.
  • Presentation has been accepted.

13. List New Action Items

  • None.

14. Adjourn

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

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh