Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2013-11-25

Meeting called to order: 11:05 AM EST

1. Roll Call

Carl Walker
Eric Cormack (left 11:54)
Michele Portolan
Ian McIntosh
Heiko Ehrenberg (joined 11:08)

Excused:
Tim Pender
Brad Van Treuren
Adam Ley
Peter Horwood
Brian Erickson

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

11/18/2013:

  • Draft circulated 11/18/2013.
  • Eric noted two corrections, both near the end of 5a:
    • Now we are beginning to see BScan as an interface to other functions and features.
    • Ian thought that most of the other comments made by Adam were statements that required no further explanation.
  • 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.
  • All - Consider material for BTW: Either specific sub-topics related to our Templates or any other alternative subject we could present. Ongoing.

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.  Material for BTW.

  • Michele had circulated a diagram illustrating his high-level view of SJTAG and Ian had circulated his outline for the BTW presentation.
  • {Powerpoint presentations shared}
  • Ian's felt that the first question would be "What is SJTAG?" which requires an answer to "What is a system?" from the SJTAG perspective.  We've had difficulty getting a grasp of that.  Ian listed some attributes that might in some way define a "system" as being different from a "board" or differentiate SJTAG from JTAG (in fact a "board" may well be a "system").  Ian felt that the most defining element was that an "SJTAG system" required a higher level of management/coordination of resources (power, scan chains, I/O, etc.).  Eric was inclined to agree and noted that BTW attendees were likely to be well aware of JTAG but might need some steering on what SJTAG was offering, whether it introduced new languages, etc.
  • Eric and Heiko suggested that the question could be put to the attendees to gain feedback on their view of what a system is.  Ian felt that many people may still see it as a rack full of boards, but Eric was quick to disagree and suggested that SOCs and boards with daughter boards were more likely to be considered as systems.  Ian accepted that he was now seeing single boards replacing what had previously been maybe four boards, but noted that these higher levels of integration lead to boards that were more difficult to manufacture, Carl adding that test was more difficult and repair costs also tended to be greater.
  • Eric asked about the expected industry sector demographic for BTW.  Ian didn't have that information available but had some awareness that there were tool vendors, end users and chip manufacturers likely to be represented.  Heiko noted that previous BTW had around 20-30 attendees, but this year was slightly different due to the late organization.  Ian was expecting maybe 15-20 this year.  Eric was happy that there was a good breadth of attendees likely.
  • Ian switched to Michele's SJTAG diagram.  Ian was happy with what the diagram showed but thought that it might be worth explaining that the desktop PC (and all the structure drawn above it) could actually be folded into the System Under Test itself, to give the embedded case.  However, the external control case, as drawn, was possibly more recognizable to most people.  No further changes to the diagram were proposed.
  • Michele added that there could also be the case where some of the management is embedded but there is still external control.  Ian agreed and noted that there was a diagram he'd used previously that showed that but could not readily find it.  Eric located a copy.
  • {Eric shared slide from the System Examples pack}
  • Ian noted that this was in response to some early SJTAG slides that showed only the fully embedded or fully external configuration.
  • The next slide was brief introduction to Design Patterns with the main point being that problems that share the same key characteristics will share the same solution methods. 
  • The system example diagram is the basis for the analysis we've done in preparing the templates and the following slide is a list of the templates we have produced so far.  By email, Michele had commented that choosing Go/NoGo tests was limitation in terms what might be learned from the analyses.  Ian agreed but felt that it was chosen to keep things simple to begin with.  However, the more recent examples, using instrumentation probably went beyond that, as these offered functional, qualitative tests as well as purely structural tests and some of the recent configurations we have addressed were conceived to improve diagnostics, and so is more than Go/NoGo.
  • Heiko suggested that more classifications for the test types might be required.  Ian noted that might create a many additional templates and wondered if it might be better to drop the Go/NoGo description and generalize the templates further and instead note within the template what it was capable of - the method of conducting the test is probably the same in any case.  Michele suggested that possibly the test should be generalized but the result (and how it is treated) taken outside of the template.  Ian found this an interesting idea - essentially "type casting" the result depending on what you wanted to do with it - however Ian wanted to try to get Brad's views on this during the week, as he had a better understanding of what has previously been done with design patterns.
  • The final slide will present the revelations we've had going through this process and the questions it has opened up with the expectation that these can be thrown open to the floor.  In had noted the point about portability of diagnostics but remarked that it arose somewhat out-of-context and wasn't sure how to tie it in to the discussion of templates and what we learned from them.
  • {Eric left}
  • Ian asked that if anyone had any further observations or suggestions for the slides that they should be emailed to the group.

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

7. Schedule next meeting

  • Next Meeting: December 2. Brad, Adam expect to be absent.
  • December schedule:
    9
    16 - Brad, Carl, Peter absent.
    23 - Tim, Carl, Peter, Ian absent. Meeting cancelled.

8. Any other business

  • Eric has an opportunity to present at an event run by the National Microelectronics Institute, and had enquired if it would be OK to offer some SJTAG related matter.  Ian thought that would be OK and asked that the group had a chance to see what might be offered.

9. Review new action items

  • None.

10. Adjourn

Heiko moved to adjourn at 11:58 AM EST, seconded by Michele.

Respectfully submitted, Ian McIntosh