From: Carl Barnhart

Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:24 PM

Subject: 1149.1 INIT Meeting Notes, 8 Jan 2010

Attendees:

Carl Barnhart

C J Clark
Dave Dubberke

Ted Eaton

Herko Ehrenberg

Sivi Jaya

Roland Latvala

Adam Ley

Ken Parker

Carol Pyron

Francisco Russi

We first reviewed and made minor changes to a set of slides Carol prepared to document our motivation.  This is a start for some of the descriptive text we will need.  Carol has distributed the updated slides separately.

Ken took an action item for himself to distribute our rules and the slides to the IEEE 1532 Working Group, since he feels they will have a strong interest in this issue and we have no input from the FPGA world at the moment.  (Done)

We then dove back into the rules (around 3.i and later).

• We discussed the rules for timing the INIT_RUN instruction execution.  There was a note proposing dropping the criteria based on a system clock or on straight time.  After discussion, it was decided to keep these two specifications, but to add a Recommendation to avoid the system clock requirement if possible, and that the system clock could NOT be required after the completion of INIT_RUN.  This plugs an existing “hole” in 1149.1, which does not now have a rule that operation of 1149.1 may not be dependent on a system clock, only TCK. (CJ, take note.)
• We then had a lengthy and passionate discussion of whether the results of INIT_RUN could or should persist through a Test-Logic-Reset (TLR) state (Rule 3.k 3)).  Ken fought for allowing retention because multi-section boundary scan tests always start and stop in TLR, and a lengthy INIT sequence could greatly extend test time ($).  Carol argued that her designers could not provide such persistence, that TLR effectively reset the chip to mission mode and that mission mode controls of I/Os, PLLs etc. would have to take over, destroying the results of INIT_RUN. 
  
  NOTE:  It would appear that there is a fundamental definitional question here as to whether TLR puts the chip in mission mode or whether TLR can be a simple waystation between test sections without asserting mission mode.  We may need the dot-1 WG to resolve this and perhaps add words (rules?) governing the transitions between test sections (require use of RTI instead of TLR for each test section?) and test/mission mode.  CJ?  Adam?  Ken, what about a rule that says that if you want the INIT_RUN state to persist between test sections, do not enter TLR and use RTI as the “parking” state instead?

A couple changes were made to the rules, and the new rules distributed by Carol.  Next week we will resume the discussion of TLR and transition between test sections and mission mode.

Carl

"The secret is to ask the right question.  Then the answer takes care of itself."

Carl F. Barnhart

Senior DFT Architect / SiliconAid Solutions

Office: 512-535-1543 / Cell:  512-608-3280

Web:  http://www.siliconaid.com