Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2013-11-04

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EST

1. Roll Call 

Ian McIntosh
Eric Cormack
Michele Portolan
Carl Walker
Brad Van Treuren
Heiko Ehrenberg
Brian Erickson (joined 11:07)
Peter Horwood (joined 11:09)

Excused:
Adam Ley
Patrick Au

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

10/21/2013:

  • Draft circulated 10/21/2013.
  • No corrections advised.
  • Eric moved to approve seconded by Carl, no objections or abstentions.

10/28/2013:

  • Draft circulated 10/28/2013.
  • No corrections advised.
  • Heiko moved to approve seconded by Brian, no objections or abstentions.

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.
  • All - Consider material for BTW: Either specific sub-topics related to our Templates or any other alternative subject we could present. Ongoing.
    • Bill Eklow has added an item to the BTW agenda for Design Patterns and Templates.

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.  Newsletter

  • Ian had circulated a draft newsletter incorporating Brad's additions and a further update following suggestions and corrections from Heiko.
  • {Draft Newsletter shared}
  • No further corrections were proposed. Eric moved to approve for publication, seconded by Brian, no objections.

b.  BTW - What do we offer?

  • Bill was interested by our offer to talk on Design Patterns and Templates and has added this to the agenda.  The format means we have 5-10 minutes to present with the rest of the time slot given over to questions and discussion.  Brad notes that Zoe Conroy's presentations at ITC and for iNEMI BA BIST meeting were similar to what we were trying to do, although that used maybe 30 slides.  Ian thought the presentation time we had for BTW meant 4 or 5 slides at most, so they needed to have impact without being cluttered.
  • Brad thought we could really only show the template categories and go through one example.  One of the most recent ones would be good as it would show the discoveries we've made. Ian noted that we did not have much time to prepare before December, but it would probably need to be done "offline".

c.  Templates - Tx Rx lane selection amendments.

  • Suggestions had been made at the previous meeting that there needed to be a general note in the assumptions to require a means of selecting the paths for the Rx and Tx instruments, while consequences would provide examples of implementation dependent considerations.
  • {Wiki Template Go/NoGo Instrumented Test of AC Coupled Links with Multiple Loopbacks at One End shared}
  • Ian asked to be reminded on why the Tx and Rx instruments needed to be handled differently from the loopback instrument.  Brad pointed out that it was the question of co-ordination of the Tx and Rx if they were in different devices.
  • ASSUMPTIONS
  • For the loopback, it is an expectation that the Tx and Rx instruments will reside in the same device and this was added to the assumptions. Ian initially proposed to copy the sub-bullet from the loopback and adapt it to apply to the Rx and Tx instruments but Brad wasn't entirely happy that it should imply that the lane selection could only be done within the host device.  Similarly the constraint of only permitting JTAG to be the access link may be too limiting, and a parallel was drawn to similar debate within P1687.
  • Michele suggested that the tooling needed to be aware of the interfaces and the bullet point here could be worded in a way that did not preclude the use of other interfaces.  The bullet was written in terms of the "Test Manager", since that is our defined term for the "test controller".
  • Peter commented that there still needed to be something to cover the possible use of other interfaces.  Ian and Brad agreed noting that it was the intent to add this under "Consequences".  Further discussion consolidated the bullet points for the loopback and Rx/Tx instruments into a single description with a sub-bullet on the interfaces.  This revised wording seemed to obviate the need for adding anything to "Consequences", at least for the loopback cases.
  • It would likely still be necessary to have additional consequences noted for the case with Rx and Tx in different devices.
  • Ian would try to amend the other templates in line with today's discussion and have them available for comment at the next meeting.

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

Coordination of non-1149.1 interfaces should be allowed within the scope of SJTAG.

7. Schedule next meeting

  • Next Meeting: November 11.  Eric expects to be absent, Heiko for the next two weeks.
  • November schedule: 18, 25. Thanksgiving may restrict attendance on 11/25.

8. Any other business

  • None.

9. Review new action items

  • None.

 10. Adjourn

Peter moved to adjourn at 12:03 PM EST, seconded by Eric.

Respectfully submitted, Ian McIntosh