IEEE P1500 Working Group meeting
November 9, 2000
Sunnyvale, CA
Burlington, MA
Dallas, TX
Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Attendees

Agenda

• Meeting Start & Introductions -Yervant
• Short update from CTL - Rohit
• Short update from CTAG - Lee
• Short DOC update - Erik Jan
• Short mergeable core update - Scott Davidson
• CTAG & CTL Issues
  • SIL - Mike R & Rohit
  • Instructions - Teresa & Rohit
  • Cells - Jason & Rohit
• CTAG specific issues
  • SIL compliance
  • SIL connections
  • SIL completion plan & date
  • TAM Interface start plan & date
• CTL specific issues
• Other issues

Minutes

1. Roll Call

2. Yervant reviewed agenda.
   • Only change that Sudipta could not attend, so Scott will cover Mergeable Task force.
   • Rohit suggested to continue ITC discussion on integration.

3. Rohit gave update on CTL.
   • Very little time has been spent on memory BIST.
   • Working closely with BSDL group (Ken Parker) to check compatibility. Used one example that is hardware independent. This example is available on CTL web-site.
   • It needs to be discussed if CTL should be considered independently as it may consolidate other languages like STIL, BSDL etc.

     ACTION: This item will be discussed in the next P1500 meeting, Yervant will announce it.

   • STIL is looking at XML, present decision is that no change in STIL format. If anything occurs it will be a parallel effort.

4. Lee gave CTAG update.
   • Since ITC focus has been on SIL interface. Primary issue is single bit bypass.
   • Mike R. mentioned that at the present time it's CTL impact is not known.

5. Erik Jan gave update on documentation.
   • The version that was supposed to be out at ITC, is still not done, figures are still missing from version 0.3.

     ACTION: Erik Jan will complete it before the end of this year and release it for review.

6. Scott gave update on Mergeable Task Force.
   • No meeting since ITC.
   • Defining DFT process for mergeable core; developing a DFT disclosure document that includes fault coverage, fault simulation, DFT methodology, Iddq methodology, MBIST, power consumption during test etc.
   • This disclosure document will be mandatory but what is being filled by core provider will be discretionary.
   • Reviewing tri-state rules provided by Kamran.

7. Discussion items.
   • Mike R. gave update of WIR tiger team, his presentation will be posted on the web.
   • SIL connection is not mandated.
   • Rohit asked for characteristics of TAM and WIP, what makes one group of signal WIP and another group TAM in a hierarchical core. This lead to a lot of discussion but no clear answer emerged.
   • It was identified that for sub-cores the following needs to be decided
     • Should there be another key word in the CTL
     • Should there be 2 CTL files, one for wrapper with WART and another for wrapper without WART.
     • Erik Jan mentioned that WART is discussed but not decided yet.

8. No discussion on instruction
   • Teresa was not able to attend the meeting, and probably doesn't have a new update.

9. Jason gave update on wrapper cells.
   • Past work has not been reviewed
   • 20 basic cell-types as examples are available with bubble diagrams.
   • need volunteers.

10. Rohit, Dwayne and others discussed how configurations must be described in CTL, and the difficulty of ensuring compliance for dynamic configurations in a hierarchical core. Dynamic configuration features are needed for debug.

11. Rohit will attempt to support dynamic configurations in CTL. Rohit will look at short cuts for parameterizable CTL, but does not guarantee a solution. STIL does not support this.

    He will also attempt to support any number of levels.

12. System Integration Issues. Rohit described the patterns, and the macros to create them, for system level integration in CTL. There is one macro required per mode.

13. CTAG Items

    Lee: They are ready to complete the work on the SIL by end of or even early 1Q'01.

    CTAG expects some level of CTL support for SILs.

    Remaining Items:

    • Completion of review list for wrapped cells - Jason.
    • Finalized Instruction Set - Theresa
    • Documentation on WIR - Mike.

    Their goal is a single, integrated, document.

    After this is done they wish to attack the TAM interface, with a completion date of mid 2001.

14. There was a discussion of testing CTL. picoJava seems to be a good test case. Scott and Rohit will meet to describe the picoJava interface in CTL.

15. Balloting: Yervant predicted that we might be able to go to balloting by the end of August 2001.

Next Meeting