Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2014-10-27

Meeting called to order: 11:06 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Brad Van Treuren
Michele Portolan
Peter Horwood (joined 12:00)

Excused:
Adam Ley
Heiko Ehrenberg
Tim Pender

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

10/13/2014:

  • Draft circulated 10/14/2014.
  • No corrections noted.
  • Insufficient attendees to vote on approval.

10/20/2014:

  • Draft circulated 10/20/2014.
  • 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)
  • Ian: Add the previously discussed lists to the 'master' template. Ongoing.
    • Some sections need further expansion that may take time to develop.
  • Ian: Circulate the draft Green Paper for review and comment. Comments to be returned prior to next meeting. COMPLETE.

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.
b.
Green Paper review.

  • Michele offered to present feedback on ITC but preferred to wait until later in the meeting to allow more people to join.
  • An updated draft of the Green Paper, with diagrams included, had been supplied by Brad.  No other diagrams had been proposed {Word document shared}.  The group worked through each section in turn.
  • Introduction/Abstract: 
    • Title changed to match Ian's proposal for the Newsletter. The only textual change is that references to "P1687" (throughout the document) have been changed to "1687" as the TTSC minutes show this in now an approved standard.
  • 1500 Insights:
    • As Ian had never had cause to use IEEE 1500 he could not really comment on this section.  Brad explained that he was aiming to highlight the use of the WIR in the selection of access to the WBRs.  Ian suggested that diagram (Figure 1) might look better if the position of the WIR and BYPASS were swapped but wasn't sure how significant the proximity of the WSC arrow to the WIR was.  Brad noted that this diagram was essentially similar to a diagram used by the 1500 WG in an overview given at ITC.  WSC is the Wrapper Serial Control and defines the behaviour of multiple WSIs and WSOs.  Leave diagram alone.
    • Code snippets show essentially static data that depends on the sequences defined in the CTL; the CTL is somewhat similar to PDL level-0.
  • 1149.1-2013 Insights:
    • Michele referenced a discussion he had during ITC that it was possible to poll the SIB in order to confirm the state of the device, and wondered if this was worth mentioning.  Brad did not see that as a requirement in the standard but noted that it was probably allowed and likely also possible within 1687.  It may be something for the next Green Paper as it deals more directly with that subject matter; the topic here was more the comparison manual or automatic methods of scan path selection - something the engineer defines or something the tooling should do.
    • Figure 2 is intended to assist both the 1149.1-2013 and 1687 sections.
  • 1687 Insights:
    • Ian felt that all the references to standards should be stated as e.g. "IEEE 1687" rather then using the number alone.  Brad agreed to correct that throughout the document {ACTION}.
    • The diagram (Figure 2) has been cropped at the left side to remove unnecessary elements.  Ian believed he had a "cleaner" copy with slightly different colours to improve readability that was used in the ITC poster.  The scope of the "Inside the chip" text could be clearer: Make sure it's colour keyed to the bounding box, perhaps shade the three inner zones differently or make the dividing lines dashed.  The cropped brace at the left and the I2C arrow should be removed, and the whole image could be a little bigger.  Ian will re-work the diagram {ACTION}.
  • Open OCD Insights:
    • No particular comments
    • In looking at the diagram (Figure 3) Brad was reminded that the document did not provide any references.  As a discussion document, did it need any?  It probably does not need a comprehensive list of references in the way that a formal paper would, but to allow readers to start their own research it may be worth pointing out a few key references.  Brad will provide a list {ACTION}.  It is probably not necessary to place inline markers in the text to link to the references.
    • Brad's main question was whether the entire document was making sense.  Michele felt it did and helped to air the different points of view - this was something that took a little while to recognise and resolve in the P1687 group. 
  • Observations and Conclusions:
    • Brad was trying not to present a biased conclusion, but leave it up to the reader to arrive at their own conclusions.  Ian thought it was worth stating that up-front, so people didn't try to look for a recommendation in the text.  The invitation in the last paragraph to provide feedback could be a more explicit encouragement.  Brad will revise the text accordingly for both points {ACTION}.
  • Newsletter review gave rise to no particular comments {draft newsletter shared}.  Ian will work Figure 1 from the Green Paper into the extract. The sidebar item, "From the Chair" refers to ITC, so Ian took Michele's comments at this point.
  • Feedback from ITC:
    • Michele reported that the poster session went well and that he had lots of people stopping by to ask questions.  Poster in a good position just opposite the food table making it an easy stop. 
    • Now that 1687 is finished some people seem to be asking "now, what else is there?"  Michele had been making clear that SJTAG could address board, SoC, etc. 
    • Most people liked the idea that SJTAG was not "just another standard" but a way of collecting the existing standards under an overlay.
    • One comment was that the poster did not include a QR code for the website.
    • A particular question was whether SJTAG intended to create another language: Michele answered that was a last resort and we'd first try to see what resources existed and what resources we needed.
    • Common question was whether or not we have a PAR.
    • There seemed to be more board level activity this year than when Michele last attended ITC two years ago.
    • Bill Eklow seems keen to have something from SJTAG on next years technical track for ITC.
  • Ian will try to distil something from the above to add to the Newsletter.
  • Ian asked Michele to advice any corrections to the item on his offer of a demonstration of his 1687 engine.  Michele saw nothing that needed changed.  He was trying to see when he could fit the demonstration in and November 10 or 17 looked promising.  He'd rather do it before December, and was keen to get feedback from as wide a range of respondents as possible.
  • Ian will try to circulate an updated newsletter for approval around midweek although the Green Paper needs to be ready on the website before the Newsletter goes out.  It might be prudent to wait until Monday to issue: Michele commented that a Tuesday might be the best day for the email to get attention, so sending out on Monday evening could be a good idea.

c. Test Managers - Primary and alternate cases

  • {Not discussed due to lack of time}

d. SJTAG Standards Roadmap - continue organising topics.

  • {Not discussed due to lack of time}

6. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

7. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • Definition of a "System" will likely rely on the concept of "assemblies" consisting of a collection of cores and technologies over which we have no design control.

8. Schedule next meeting

  • November 3.
  • November schedule: 3, 10, 17, 24.

9. Any other business

  • None.

10. Review new action items

  • Ian: Re-work the Infrastructure diagram for the Green Paper.
  • Brad: Add references list to Green Paper.
  • Brad: Ensure all references to standards in the Green Paper include the "IEEE" prefix.
  • Brad: Amend the Observations and Conclusions section of the Green Paper to state that it is not intended to make a recommendation but to leave it to reader to draw their own conclusions and to encourage reader feedback.

11. Adjourn

Brad moved to adjourn at 12:22 PM EDT, seconded by Peter.

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh