Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2011-12-12

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Eric Cormack
Ian McIntosh
Adam Ley
Brian Erickson
Tim Pender
Richard Foster
Heiko Ehrenberg (joined 11:22)
Harrison Miles (joined 11:34)

Excused:
Carl Walker
Brad Van Treuren
Patrick Au

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

12/05/2011 minutes:

  • Draft circulated on 12/06/2011.
  • No corrections advised.
  • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

3. Review old action items

  • Adam proposed we cover the following at the next meeting:
    • Establish consensus on goals and constraints
    • What are we trying to achieve?
    • What restrictions are we faced with?
  • 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/Brad: Condense gateway comments and queries into a concise set of questions. - Ongoing
  • All: Forward text file to Ian containing keywords from review of meeting minutes. - Ongoing.
  • Carl/Brad: Get annotated keyword worksheets to Ian by Wednesday Close of Business. - Ongoing
  • All: Consider how a keyword can be used to define the chain configuration for a given test step, and what that keyword might be.
  • Harrison: Prepare slide showing matrix of industry sectors by volume/mix. - Ongoing.

4. Discussion Topics

  1. Revisit our Primitives discussion
    - Layering 'Control' on the existing structural description
    - - How did P1687 approach this, and what problems did they encounter?
    - - Did Dot7 identify similar structure/control separation?
    • [Ian] Since Carl isn't on the call and I don't have a current 'host key' for this meeting I won't be able to share anything, which might make things awkward today.
    • [Ian] Last week, it was mentioned that P1687 developed similar primitives to those we have, and then went back and layered the control over those. I'd like to look at that idea, but I don't think we've got anyone on the call who can say how they went about that or what problems they encountered.
    • [Ian] I have to confess to not really following P1687 too closely. I maybe should, but it's a matter of what time I can spare.
    • [Eric] Yes, that's what I find.
    • [Ian] So the other angle might be, with Adam on the call just now, to ask if the Dot7 group encountered a similar structure/control split.
    • [Adam] If you're asking me to comment on that, I can.
    • [Adam] The entirety, or almost the entirety, of 1449.7 is divorced from structure. It is almost purely an adaption of the 1149.1 protocol to deliver the enhanced functionality and the reduced pin count. It is described as a 'link'; 2-wire or 4-wire depending on the TAP Class elected, and links through to an 1149.1 target.
    • [Adam] So the only structural aspect is in the concept of the star topology, although a series connection is also permissable.
    • [Ian] Yes, of course it didn't really aim to address chain management.
    • [Adam] The purest form is the star topology. In 1149.7, even in a series topology, TMS and TCK is effectively in a star configuration.
    • [Adam] Hierarchically, nothing as actually expressed above that lowest level star. There are allusions to 1149.1 bridges that may be used to bridge star nodes. That may not actually be in the documentation but it was discussed. It is an approach that could be developed.
    • {Heiko joined}
    • [Ian] Another thing that had been touched on recently was languages such as PDL. With PDL being favored by P1687, along with ICL, and some of the new developments in 1149.1 also using PDL, there is some notion of uniformity.
    • [Ian] PDL may not be what we think we need, but I guess it's still being defined so it could be extended to better suit our needs. But the same may be true of other languages, in the way that Gunnar produced STAPL++.
    • [Ian] Going back to one of the very early SJTAG meetings, there was a question about whether SJTAG needed a new language at all. There was a spread of opinions, but some good arguments were raised to say the STAPL could do most things already.
    • [Heiko] PDL wouldn't be able describe how you connect your gateway. You may be able to use it but it wouldn't be the only thing you'd need.
    • [Ian] So what then describes the structure?
    • {Silence}
    • [Ian] I suspect we're not going to make a lot more progress today.
    • [Heiko] Does Harrison have anything on his slides?
    • [Ian] I haven't seen anything and he hasn't joined the call yet today.
    • [Heiko] On language, we need to look at what we want to describe and then see what languages can best do that.
    • [Heiko] Kind of what P1687 did. I think they built a spreadsheet of what things they needed to describe. Then a list of languages was put forward to see what would work.
    • [Ian] We collated a list of languages that people currently use for JTAG applications as part of our survey. We didn't ask what each actually was used for though.
    • [Ian] I think we're struggling a bit here today. There are other topics that we could discuss but they're probably better left for a clean start after the New Year, when we hopefully have more of the group here.

5. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

Not discussed.

6. Schedule next meeting

Next Meeting:
19th; Patrick, Ian and Brad will miss this meeting.

First meeting in January 2012 will be Jan. 9th.

7. Any other business

Not discussed.

8. Review new action items

Not discussed.

9. Adjourn

{Harrison joined}

Heiko moved to adjourn at 11:36 AM EST, seconded by Eric.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh