Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2013-10-14

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EDT

1. Roll Call 

Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Brian Erickson
Heiko Ehrenberg
Peter Horwood (joined 11:16)

Excused:
Brad Van Treuren
Adam Ley
Eric Cormack

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

9/30/2013:

  • Draft circulated 9/30/2013.
  • No corrections noted.
  • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

10/7/2013:

  • Draft circulated 10/7/2013.
  • No corrections noted.
  • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.


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)
  • 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.
  • Ian/All: Look for real world examples of boards that we could take through from board test to a system test implementation as a worked example case. Ongoing.
  • Ian - Add the previously discussed lists to the 'master' template. Ongoing.
    Some sections need further expansion that may take time to develop.

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

a.  Meeting time conflicts with 1149.10 - possible resolutions?

  • The conflict with the Dot10 meeting is likely to continue on a weekly basis. Ian had spoken to CJ Clark about this and he professed to be unaware of our long standing schedule. Moving to an earlier time is impossible for Brian. Moving to a later time will be awkward for Europeans, although Ian remarked that if it were a few hours later he could join from home, although it might become a problem for preparing the minutes in a timely manner.
  • Suggestions were:
    1. A 'Doodle Poll' to canvass opinions on possible alternative slots.
    2. Ask any members of our WG that are also on the Dot10 call to petition for Dot10 to move to alternative.
  • These to be circulated to the group. {ACTION}
  • In any case Ian will try to see if there can be a compromise with CJ Clark.

b.  Go/NoGo Instrumented Test with Multiple Loopbacks at One End - Verify/amend.  Review what we've accomplished.

  • Ian had copied the single loopback into a new template and revised the title to be the multiple loopback case.
  • The two templates were shared:
    http://wiki.sjtag.org/index.php?title=Go/NoGo_Instrumented_Test_of_AC_Coupled_Links_with_a_Single_Loopback_at_One_End
    http://wiki.sjtag.org/index.php?title=Go/NoGo_Instrumented_Test_of_AC_Coupled_Links_with_Multiple_Loopbacks_at_One_End
  • Following notes record discussions during the course of reviewing the latter of these templates.
  • Ian thought that most of the single loopback case would be retained.  The most obvious difference was the diagnostic ability.  The nature of the loopbacks was questioned and Ian replied that his understanding was that where the single loopback case used a predefined pair of lanes which only allowed diagnosis to that pair, the multiple loopback case allowed the single upstream lane to looped to one or more downstream lanes which would permit fault isolation to a single lane depending on how the fault manifested.
  • OPERATION OVERVIEW BEING ANALYZED
    • Add note to explain that reflected data may be returned on one or more lanes to aid diagnostics.
  • CONSEQUENCES
    • Amended the comment on diagnostics to state that it can go to a single lane.
  • Ian felt there were too few people on the call to conduct a meaningful review of achievements.

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

None.

7. Schedule next meeting

  • Next Meeting:
    October 21 - Usual time pending any rescheduling.
  • October schedule:
    21, 28.


8. Any other business

  • There was no further news on BTW proposals.
  • Newsletter: Templates may worth an article, and the new website might be ready for release too.
  • The content of the "staging site" is now completely up-to-date (one or two small items will need to be addressed once it is in its final location).  Adam seems to have inspected the site quite thoroughly and had brought several items to Ian's attention, most of which had now been corrected.  The biggest issue currently is the graphic that appears as the page heading.  Michele had suggested showing the progression from chip up to system - a good idea but we still need to find the photos to include.  Heiko suggested looked at some of the photosharing sites.  These are good but we need to be sure that the images are royalty free although providing credits where appropriate should not be a problem.  It is possible that some members may be able to find examples within their own businesses, provided that they are releasable.
  • Ian had circulated a draft logo.
    {Logo image shared}
    Peter remarked that if followed modern trends for simplicity and ease of porting to mobile platforms.  This had been Ian's aim.  There were no further suggestions for improvement, although Ian noted that Adam had asked if the oval might be reincluded.

9. Review new action items

  • Ian - Circulate enquiry on future meetings times.

 10. Adjourn

Peter moved to adjourn at 11:39 AM EDT, seconded by Brian.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh