🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12860@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) writes:
>NOW...  I WANT TO TAKE EXTREME ISSUE WITH YOUR INFERENCE THAT THE
>APOLLO 10K ARCHITECTURE FOR SCAN IS SOMEHOW BETTER THAN BOUNDARY SCAN.
>
>The P1149.1 standard is the engine that is driving the future of
>built-in test.  Departures from this standard slow the process of
>progress.  The issue is not whether something is better (and I doubt
>that your example qualifies) but whether the standard is "good
>enough".  If it is good enough, it should be used, and if it is used
>people will find that it has much more capability than is visible on
>the surface.  For example, did you know that ATT uses boundary scan as
>the basis for communication of internal BIST results from chips to
>boundary scan controllers in production test applications?  Did you
>know that this use, and extensions of this methodology, are in
>development at many major sites in the US and elsewhere?
>
>Did you know that a substantial infrastructure - involving HW and SW is
>being created around P1149.1 and its extensions, an infrastructure that
>will not support other architectures and scan methodologies?  Do you
>think it is smart and cost effective and productive to depart from the
>standard under these conditions?

Do you realize that the DN10000 scan architecture was developed before
1149.1?  How can you accuse us of "departing from the standard" when
the standard wasn't even around when we did this work?

The DN10k scan architecture and 1149.1 are different beasts.  Each has
its good features and not-so-good features, and each does some things
better than the other.  Having written hundreds of thousands of lines
of scan software, I personally believe that the DN10k architecture is
easier for software to deal with when it comes to board-level testing.
But that is only my opinion, and it could be wrong.  But you will
allow me to have my own opinions, won't you, Arnie?  Or is there only
one standardized opinion, too?

1149.1 is the best standard we have today, but it is not the be-all
and end-all of scan test architectures.  It is worthwhile for anyone
involved in scan testing to study the DN10000 scan architecture and
others so that their good features can be incorporated into the next
scan test standard.  Do you think it is "smart and cost effective and
productive" to reinvent the wheel?

Chill out, Arnie.

-steve