🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxH4w7.ts@scd.hp.com> vinoski@ch.apollo.hp.com (Stephen Vinoski) writes:
>In article <12860@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> arnief@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Arnie Frisch) writes:
...........
>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?

Do you realize that JTAG (the Joint Test Action Group) had been working
on this for about 8 years, and that they were well ahead of the DN10000
architecture when they started writing the basis for the P1149.1
standard?
........
>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?

As I understand it, consultants were hired to do the major part of the
IC design for the 10K - including the scan design.  They subsequently
came out with a product for testing scan designs and tried to sell it -
unsuccessfully - under the banner "Gillytronics".  Seems like something
was lacking in their methodology.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories