Minutes of Weekly Meeting, 2016-11-02

Meeting called to order: 11:10 AM EDT

1. Roll Call

Ian McIntosh
Carl Walker
Eric Cormack
Brad Van Treuren
Peter Horwood

By Proxy:
---

Excused:
Brian Erickson
Heiko Ehrenberg
Bill Eklow

2. Review and approve previous minutes:

  • Approval of October 26 minutes (draft circulated on 10/26/2016)
    • 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: Make sure that Bill has the text before ITC (Nov. 15). COMPLETE.
    • Ian has forwarded the information, although Bill has asked for it to be re-sent.

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
  • The Newsletter was due at the end of July 2015.

5. Discussion Topics

a. Enumerate our requirements
- What are we trying to implement?
- Review previous Key Takeaways for relevant ideas - continue from row 57

  • The intent was to continue with the breakdown of the Key Takeaways started last week.  Ian had supplied Brad with an updated list of Key Takeaways, now including a 'context' extract from the relevant meeting notes.
  • {Brad shared the Key Takeaways and the Requirements worksheets}
  • After discussing the different natures of priority tasks and how they may be handled, Ian cautioned that there was a danger of trying to design a real-time operating system. The main question was how priorities would be assigned. It was generally agreed that would need to be an intervention from the test engineer as relative priority could not be inferred automatically. 
  • Brad noted that there was a difference between 'priority' tasks that had iterations per unit time and those that were based on urgency; this was an overloading of the term 'priority' and may need to be defined.
  • Voltage and temperature modelling tasks could be critical and may need to periodically interrupt, e.g. a memory test and this could disrupt the preconditioning for the test. This creates a requirement to be able to maintain or restore states in order to fully support such interruptive tasks. This could be an advanced extension of SJTAG.
  • Regarding protocol translations, Brad considered that SJTAG should only call the services provided by the bridge designer.  The question was whether they were writing that service description in PDL, some SJTAG defined language or a tools related language (as is typically done at present). Standardising this could come later, as BSDL did for 1149.1.
  • The top-down vs bottom-up discussion was primarily a recommendation for tooling: The determination of the path to a target register needs to be done bottom up, but actually establishing the path needs to be done top-down.
  • In terms of feature sets for selector devices, it was difficult to assume a "common grammar" for all such devices. What is common is that they have an input and one or more outputs that may be connected singly or in combination. There is an access to the selector for control, and an access through the selector to pass data.  Tools need to support that. Other features, such as the ability to park and output in the current state can be treated as "attributes" of that port and may be optionally implemented by the tool provider, based on the behavioural description provided by the bridge designer.
  • The group reached Row 59 of Ian's sheet before time ran out.
  • The updated version of Brad's Requirement Excel file is available here: http://files.sjtag.org/Brad/SJTAG%20Requirement%20List%2020161102.xlsx.

6. Topic for next meeting

  • Enumerate our requirements - continued
    • What are we trying to implement?
    • Review previous Key Takeaways for relevant ideas - continue from row 60.

7. Key Takeaway for today's meeting

  • None.

8. Glossary terms from this meeting

  • 'Priority' - may relate to 'frequency' and 'urgency' in distinct definitions.
  • Carried over:
    • Definition of "interchangeability" required.
    • 'Instance' (or a more specific version of the term) may require definition in future.
    • 'Master through Slave Mode'
    • 'Master to Master Mode'
    • Need a refined definition of "system" for the purposes of the PAR.

9. Schedule next meeting

  • Next meeting November 9. Heiko and Carl will be out.
  • November schedule:
    • 16, 23, 30.

10. Any other business

  • Ian hopes Michele will be able to provide a fuller report on the TESTA tutorial in due course.

11. Review new action items

  • None.

12. Adjourn

  • Peter moved to adjourn, seconded by Brad.
  • Meeting adjourned at 12:12 PM EDT

Respectfully submitted,
Ian McIntosh