Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2012-11-12

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Harrison Miles
Dick Miller (left 11:30)
Adam Ley (left 11:59)
Peter Horwood
Eric Cormack
Brian Erickson
Brad Van Treuren

Excused:
Heiko Ehrenberg
Patrick Au

Ian welcomed Dick to the meeting, who had been introduced by Heiko at ITC.

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

10/29/2012 minutes:

  • No corrections advised to the draft sent October 29.
  • Brian moved to approve, seconded by Carl with Brad abstaining. Approved with the Chair's casting vote.

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: Contact Bill Eklow regarding use of the ITC mailer to promote an SJTAG Fringe Meeting at ITC. - Nothing more to report. Close, as ITC is only a week away.
  • Heiko: Prepare SJTAG poster for ITC and send out a draft for review/comments. - COMPLETE.
  • Harrison will attempt to come up with a table of use cases and their associated layer and what can be done at that layer. Ongoing. Harrison has though about this but has yet to formulate his thoughts in writing. Harrison was drawing a comparison with P1838 - this is die-centric but may be the SJTAG of silicon.

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

5. Discussion Topics

  1. ITC report - Heiko, by proxy.
    • Ian related Heiko's feedback from ITC: Attendance roughly similar to last year with a little over 1100 attendees and exhibitor numbers up by around 14%. Presentation material was still largely chip-centric although Heiko had noted that there were a number of attendees who were more board test oriented. SJTAG Poster traffic was slow but this seemed to be the case for most of the other posters too. The Fringe Meeting was poorly attended with only Heiko, Brian and Dick attending. On the basis of previous comments from Bill Eklow, Ian suspected this may have been a general problem, and noted that the room had been hard to find last year, although the signage was seemingly better this year. It was also the case that meeting times conflicted with the technical presentations which were most people's motivation for attending ITC. Dick agreed that room could have been easier to find, and he had to ask Heiko during the Poster session. This was Dick's first visit to ITC in around 10 years. While there wasn't much board test material around he still found ITC very informative. Brian had suggested that SJTAG maybe needed the PAR to get more traction within industry.
    • Harrison compared ITC to the IPC APEX event, noting that most of the board test activity seemed to take place there and that the San Diego Conference Center was much larger than the Disneyland venue, an indication of the difference in scale of the events, with more focus on the vendor aspects. ITC was more of a global technology seminar where the latest developments and research may be presented, and the last 3-5 years that activity has mainly been in the chip area. Brad remarked that the history of ITC was that it started out as the local conference of the Philadelphia Chapter of the IEEE to try to disseminate new test technology and eventually grew into an international conference. It was targeting a different are of business from some of the other conferences.
    • Harrison felt that there had been an emphasis shift towards silicon in recent years arising out of developments like P1687 and P1838. Ian thought that SJTAG might have a naturally smaller audience because it is considering higher level assemblies and later stages in the production cycle: There is maybe little to interest chip designers, or CMs, for example.
    • {Dick left}
  2. Overdue Newsletter - please consider possible topics prior to the meeting.
    • A newsletter had been due at the end of October but Ian had forgotten to prepare one. We should try to issue one this month and an obvious topic would a report on ITC. Heiko had sent Ian a couple of photographs, one showing the poster as presented, and the other a panorama of the exhibition hall.
    • {Photographs shared}
    • Ian felt the panorama would make a good banner for an ITC article, and if it was necessary to include the poster itself then the original artwork could be utilized for legibility.
    • The apparently sparse population in the photograph caused further discussion of the ITC attendance, with Brad asking if Heiko had indicated how many people had visited the SJTAG booth. Ian couldn't really answer that, and knew of only two people that had stopped long enough to engage in conversation. Eric remarked that Erik Jan Marinissen ran a workshop at the end of the week and felt that helped to attract attention. Harrison added that panel was another way to incite interest, citing a panel run via iNEMI that asked if the chip guys were helping or not. Brad remarked that the problem with a panel was that you needed to get a contrast in opinions of the panel, and in that particular case that arose out of the silicon vendors continuing to be protective of information that users felt needed to be shared.
    • Harrison also referred to a panel from ITC 2011 featuring Steve Butkovich that packed the room possibly due to the good choice of title. Adam clarified that this was the panel titled 'In-Circuit Test: The King is Dead; Long Live the King!' organized by Jun Balangue. Ian agreed that a contentious proposition for the panel to debate would instill interest. Brad referred to a panel 'Is BIST the test of the future' which attracted three Apple attendees as they were reaching the point where they felt ICT was no longer enough and were looking to functional test instead.
    • Brad added that he and Ben Bennetts had considered a panel for SJTAG five or six years ago, but decided then there wasn't a clear topic to debate and chose instead to present a tutorial. Industry has changed since then and people are more aware now of what can be done with BScan within a product, and noted that the case of a youth reconfiguring an iPhone was an example that helped highlight the subject. JTAG inside a product is more viable today as newer standards like P1687 give users the leverage to find the best test strategies for their case: BIST for some aspects or Functional Test for others.
    • Harrison suggested that next year would be good timing for a panel as dot1- 2012 would be in place, and SJTAG could be shown as a nother stage before you get to functional test. Brad noted that the ability to 'hijack' programmable logic as instrumentation was a significant advance, with Harrison noting that FPGA vendors had been forced into creating the non- standard implementations of this under pressure of demand from their customers to support design verification. Brad agreed that DVT was a big driver for that.
  3. Consider 'layers' as they relate to Harrison's table and Brad's cube model.
    • Not discussed due to lack of time.

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  1. Consider an SJTAG Panel for next ITC. Getting good panel members may be a challenge, and travel budgets may also be a significant factor.
    {Adam left}
    Motivators from 5 years ago: Ability to instantiate instrumentation within programmable devices; tension between BIST and Functional Test.

7. Schedule next meeting

Next Meeting:
November 19 - Brad is likely to miss.

November schedule:
26.

8. Any other business

None.

9. Review new action items

None.

10. Adjourn

Eric moved to adjourn at 12:05 PM EST, seconded by Brad.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh