Minutes of P2654 Working Group Meeting No.20, 2019-06-03

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EDT

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: http://files.sjtag.org/P2654WG/P2654_Meeting_20.pdf

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh (Leonardo)
Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.) (joined 11:11)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Joel Irby (Arm)
Rakesh Kumar (Ampere Computing)
Erik Larsson (Lund University)
Adam W. Ley (ASSET InterTech)
Richard Pistor (Curtiss-Wright) (joined 11:18)
Jan Schat (NXP Semiconductors) (joined 11:31)
Naveen Srivastava (Nvidia)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Brad Van Treuren (No affiliation)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)
Louis Ungar (A.T.E. Solutions)

Guests:
---

By email (non-attendees):
---

Excused:
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)

2. Agenda

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

3. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}
  • Patent slides reviewed.
    • No comment on patents but IEEE communications on participation in IEEE activities by entities on the BIS Entity List were noted. Ian has two further emails to pass on to the group, for information.

4. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • Meeting #19, May 13 (draft circulated May 13)
    • No corrections.
    • Eric moved to approve as amended, Terry seconded, no objections or abstentions → minutes approved.

5. Review Open Action Items

6. Discussion Topics

6 a) Feedback from TESTA

  • Erik gave a quick summary as Jan had not yet joined the call. The workshop had double the expected participation with around 15 people taking part. As well as Jan's presentation on P2654, there was an overview of standards in work with a lot of discussion around P1687.1. While academia and US entities were well represented the lack of European industry participants was notable
  • There was sufficient interest to repeat the workshop next year, either at ETS again or possibly within another event.
  • After Jan joined the call, he noted that the question he struggled most to answer was what could academia do with or for STAM? Academia could help with looking at aspects of the modelling: top-down, bottom-up, hybrid, for example. Security might be another area. Academia would probably need a clearly defined problem to consider.

6 b) ITC Poster outline – carried from fringe meeting

  • Abstract (http://files.sjtag.org/ITC2019/STAM_abstract_ITC_2019_jsc_14_May.doc):
    • Second paragraph may not accurately represent the current state of 1687. It is being used but mainly in SoC/ASIC in-house designed parts rather than in commercially available devices. Lack of tooling has been a factor in slow adoption but it is now being supported by a lot of EDA tooling. However, it is still mainly used for silicon ATE test. STAM could help make 1687 more accessible beyond that level.
    • The paragraph could be re-worked and supplied back to Jan for incorporation.
    • There are place holders for four names as the contributors. One will be Jan, Heiko is usually at ITC and can back up Jan at the poster if needed so he could be another. After that Brad and Ian are other possible contributors.
  • Poster; Jan's original layout (http://files.sjtag.org/ITC2019/ITC_2019_IEEE2654_jsc_14_05.pdf) and Ian's re-working of it (http://files.sjtag.org/ITC2019/ITC_2019_IEEE2654_imm_18_05.pdf):
    • Ian's alterations were mainly to add the blue backgrounds to the new diagrams and re-arrange the USB path in the "Board test use model" diagram. on there was no disagreement with the revised definitions, this probably closes action SG21.1. On this diagram it was noted that "STAM Infrastructure" should be "SJTAG Infrastructure" (STAM is the yellow bits). The STAM Templates and Description brace could be expanded to include a little more while the 1687 description brace should move a little to the left to include the TAP and the LHS of the I2C master. The STAM Description brace should then take in the RHS of the I2C master.
    • Ian had a previous version of the SJTAG Universe diagram already on a blue background but it had a squarer aspect ratio than the one used in the TESTA presentation. This left a blank space at the top right of poster which Ian had notionally filled with the "Concerns to Address" box from last year's poster. This was felt to be reasonable but the order of concerns could be adjusted:
      • Access to target (system topology)
      • Test re-use through system hierarchy
      • Hand-off to other standards
      • Diagnostics support
      • Data collection
      • Data analysis
      • Black-box vs White-box test
      • Security considerations
    • The last of these was debated as STAM did not propose to give solutions. However if it wasn't noted then it would inevitably be asked about. In practice, security is probably handled by the hardware and the application and STAM merely moves data between the two without caring what the data is for.
    • "Security" could relate to:
      • IP protection
      • Authorising access to features of the target (e.g. re-configuring)
      • Validating hardware or firmware authenticity
      • etc.

6 c) Review of P1687.1 glossary proposals

  • Not discussed due to lack of time.

7. Any Other Business

  • {Slide 13}
  • None.

8. Today's Key Takeaways

  • None.

9. 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.
      • "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.
    • "State", "Vector", "Sequence" and "Pattern" as proposed at April 8 meeting.
    • "Event", "Retargeter", "Access Interface", Access Point", "Virtual Access Point" as proposed at April 15 meeting

10. Schedule next meeting

  • June 10, 2019
    • Louis will be absent, Eric may be travelling.

11. Topic for next meeting

  • Glossary items
  • ITC Abstract
  • AutoTestCon material (if time permits)

12. Reminders

  • None.

13. List New Action Items

  • None.

14. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Peter.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:07 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh