Minutes of P2654 Working Group Meeting No.29, 2019-08-05

Meeting called to order: 11:04 AM EDT

The slide references relate to the pack used during this meeting, located here: http://files.sjtag.org/P2654WG/P2654_Meeting_29.pdf

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack (DFT Solutions)
Terry Duepner (National Instruments)
Heiko Ehrenberg (GOEPEL Electronics)
Brian Erickson (JTAG Technologies)
Peter Horwood (Firecron Ltd.) (joined 11:25)
Bill Huynh (Marvell Inc.)
Rakesh Kumar (Ampere Computing)
Joel Irby (Arm)
Jan Schat (NXP Semiconductors)
Jon Stewart (Dell)
Louis Ungar (A.T.E. Solutions) (joined 11:05)
Brad Van Treuren (No affiliation)
Carl Walker (Cisco Systems)


By email (non-attendees):

Richard Pistor (Curtiss-Wright)
Naveen Srivastava (Nvidia)
Ian McIntosh (Leonardo)

2. Agenda

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

3. IEEE Patent Slides

  • {Slides 5-9}
  • Patent slides reviewed.

4. Review and Approve Previous Minutes

  • {Slide 10}
  • Meeting #28, July 29 (updated draft circulated July 31)
    • No corrections.
    • Eric moved to approve, Carl seconded, no objections or abstentions → minutes approved.

5. Review Open Action Items

6. Discussion Topics

6 a) Business case for STAM

  • {Slide 12}
  • We talked about the business case from two perspectives: other protocols that do similar things and the different tool spaces that might be involved
  • There are different business domains that may be affected: EDA device design test, EDA device verification test, Board/System design and verification via simulation, RTL modeling of systems,  and possibly Synopsys HAPS.
  • We need to talk to some of the tool vendors that are addressing the system space.  Chip Mentor contacts don’t know anything about this.  Terry mentioned that NI is talking to Mentor about system design and will try to get contact information.  Brian suggested we draft a request email to Board Test and EDA vendors asking how they propose to integrate support for retargeting and transformations and whether they would adopt a business model of relying on EDA tools to perform retargeting of device content. Initial suggestions were JTAG Technologies, ASSET InterTech, Goepel, Corelis and any other board test vendors we think of.  For EDA vendors, Mentor Graphics, Synopsys, Cadence, and SynTest - others may come to mind later.
  • Looked at Gunnar’s paper (ITC 2005 #32.2) He used an IPMI system controller to manage and sequence board power up within a system.  Used the sub-controller as a JTAG master. 
  • Brought up other domains where similar effort has been done: IPMI, which is an open source platform management protocol that was developed by the computer industry to manage large server systems.  It has the concept of a system management bus (SMBUS), which is written on top of I2C.   ATCA is another similar protocol.
  • Lots of acronyms here, we need to update the glossary with these terms.  Terry volunteered to do so, but not by next meeting.
  • Due to security concerns, IPMI has been modified into newer Redfish that uses IPMI protocols over a REST (REpresentational State Transfer) api to allow communication while retaining some security. 
  • These open source protocols are something that we need to look into more to see how they might map. 
  • Where do we differentiate STAM from these other protocols?
  • Brad mentioned that we might need to be looking at STAM as more aligned with the PHY level in the protocol stack.
  • Need to set some boundaries for what we want to accomplish with STAM.  It should provide a foundation on which other SJTAG standards can build.

AutoTestCon slides, STAM Generalized Bridge Model

  • Did not discuss in main meeting.  Brad and Louis discussed these slides immediately after adjournment.

7. Any Other Business

  • {Slide 13}
  • None.

8. Today's Key Takeaways

  • There are players in different business groups that we will need to address.
  • Need to define the boundaries of what foundation STAM will provide.
  • Need to review other system protocols to determine how STAM is differentiated.

9. Glossary Terms from This Meeting

  • 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.
    • 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", "Access Interface" as proposed at April 15 meeting

10. Schedule next meeting

  • August 12, 2019
    • Richard out for next two weeks.
    • Joel Irby out August 12.
    • Ian out August 12.

11. Topic for next meeting

  • Business case for STAM:
    • Continue discussion of other system maintenance protocols
  • Review of AutoTestCon slides

12. Reminders

  • None.

13. List New Action Items

  • [29.1] Terry to update Glossary (Due in two weeks).

14. Adjourn

  • Eric moved to adjourn, seconded by Brad.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:00 Noon EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Carl Walker