Open Core Protocol International Partnership Governing ... - OCP-IP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ian said that the FVWG did not have enough support. Ian said that, despite this, everything theFVWG needed to release had been released. Ian went on to say that these performancemeasurements were breaking new ground, and people may not understand the significance of it.Ian said that it was not uncommon to not have volunteers. Vesa agreed that performancemeasurements were important and added that Nokia was doing something similar within theirPSL. Vesa went on to say that Nokia was unable to participate in the FVWG, but they followedthe work closely and were interested in what was going on. Ian asked if there would be feedbackfrom three companies in the next week or just two. Drew said that there should be feedback fromSonics, Texas Instruments and Nokia. James said that he would give personal feedback. Drewtold Steve to ask Christophe from Texas Instruments for feedback as well. Steve told the groupthat if he could get feedback on both the performance measurements and the throughputdocuments it would be helpful. Ian asked if there had been any input from Toshiba. Yoshimorisansaid Toshiba had not provided anything yet.AI (VTM): Check that Sonics, TI and Nokia provide performance measurement feedback forSteve as discussed/agreed upon in GSC meeting. (November 22, 2007)Steve said that another FVWG goal was clean compliance checks. Steve said that they felt goodabout basic protocol compliance, but not about configuration compliance. Steve said that thelevel of attendance they had at the meetings prevented them from progressing. Steve said thatthe errata list would demonstrate that there were a lot of things that needed to be cleaned up.Drew said it was his opinion that there was a lot of fresh text and it was bound to present somechallenges. Drew said that he was concerned about people actually submitting errata and notjust brushing over them. Drew said they should want people who own the document to beconcerned about quality control.Drew said he expected that the functional verification area of OCP was in a good state, and thatthere was not a lot of work that needed to be done. Ian told Steve that the GSC had a planningsession scheduled for mid-February at which point they would set working group priorities for thecoming year. Steve said that the main item would be cache coherency. Steve said that somepeople in the FVWG had expressed interest already. Drew said that this was very interesting,and the Cache Coherence Subgroup was currently going through some proving exercises beforetheir release. Drew said that the Cache Coherence Subgroup did not want to release this to theworld until they ran it on two systems. Drew added that Samuel Dellacherie might be interestedin contributing.AI (Drew): Get Samuel in touch with Joe Chou to see if he can start contributing to theCache Coherence Subgroup. (November 22, 2007)James said that he thought Steve was saying that once the Cache Coherence work waspublished there would be a lot of items for the FVWG to examine. Steve agreed, but said thatSamuel could get a head start on that work now. Drew said that in cache coherency, formalverification technology had proven to be quite valuable. Ian asked if it was just Samuel whowanted to contribute to the Cache Coherence Subgroup. Steve said only Samuel hadapproached him.AI (VTM): Check nature of Samuel’s current upgrade, make sure that it is statedappropriately that he can participate in the Cache Coherency Subgroup, and notify Samuelaccordingly. (November 22, 2007)Drew suggested that Samuel may want to contact Joe Chou, chair of the Cache CoherenceSubgroup to ensure that he would not slow down the group’s current progress.AI (Drew): Ask Joe Chou and Samuel to talk about practical engagement of cachecoherence work. (November 22, 2007)OCP-IP CONFIDENTIALGoverning Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 11/8/2007Page 10 of 22
Steve McMaster left the meeting at 10:03 A.M.Motion to Adjourn/Break/ReconveneDrew motioned to adjourn for a break. Vesa seconded the motion. The vote was approved: 5yeas, 0 nays and 0 abstentions. The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 A.M PST.Ian called the meeting to order at 10:23 A.M PST.Technical Vision WG StatusThe group skipped ahead to the TVWG status while waiting for working group chairs to call in tothe teleconference.Ian stated that February 2008 would be the next TVWG planning session. Ian added that theTVWG status was a prioritization process for working group activities.AI (VTM): Approach all WG chairs for their recommendations for 2008 plans. (January 5,2008)AI (VTM): Remind all GSC members to think about any activities the WG’s should beundertaking and bring them to TVWG. (February 1, 2008)Progress in AsiaThe group skipped ahead to the progress in Asia section of the meeting while waiting for workinggroup chairs to call in to the teleconference.Ian reviewed OCP-IP’s recent progress in Asia. Ian said that there were some Asian standardsmovements underway and that OCP-IP should try to tie into them when possible. Ian went on tosay that OCP-IP took part in a successful seminar with CoWare and the Nikkei press in May of2007. Ian said that the seminar was a great success and they were going to do it again in Springof 2008. Ian added that the event was very classy and got great participation. James asked it ifwas possible to align that seminar with the GSC meeting taking place in Tokyo around that time.Drew said it was a good idea and there was a chance that some of the GSC could present at thisevent.AI (Ian): Open discussions with CoWare about Spring 2008 event and see if it can bescheduled coincident with the GSC meeting. (January 15, 2008)Ian said that the May 2007 event was very user-based, and suggested that the Spring 2008 eventcould be more product-based.Ian stated that OCP-IP did a session last year in Taiwan on ESL and there was another eventscheduled for late November in Hsinchu and Tainan, Taiwan that would primarily be on debug.Ian said that the scheduled presenters for that event included himself, ITRI, Sonics, CoWare, andJeda. Ian went on to say that MIPS had dropped out due to their worldwide sales conference thatwas taking place at the same time. Ian added that Synopsys also had a scheduled worldwidesales conference at that same time.Ian said that OCP-IP had frustrations working with organizations in China like SSIPEX and CSIP.Ian said that he had been told that the way to get into China was by using Taiwan’s influence. Iantold the group that there were three Chinese companies who could credibly be considered to bedoing SoC design: Action Semi, Spreadtrum, and Vimicro. Ian said that both Spreadtrum andVimicro had joined OCP-IP as Participants in the past quarter. Ian added that Spreadtrum had areal need to join OCP-IP working groups.OCP-IP CONFIDENTIALGoverning Steering Committee Meeting Minutes 11/8/2007Page 11 of 22
Page 1 and 2: Open Core Protocol International Pa
Page 3 and 4: AI (VTM): Allow debug specification
Page 6 and 7: James reviewed the SLD WG’s statu
Page 8 and 9: to be well thought out because it w
Page 12 and 13: Ian said that OCP-IP was working wi
Page 14 and 15: to release the NoC definition speci
Page 16 and 17: Drew said that the third SWG issue
Page 18 and 19: AI (Nakada-san): Provide GSC with a
Page 20 and 21: Mentor’s activities. Drew said th
Page 22: Recruiting UpdateJoe and Ian review

Open Core Protocol International Partnership Governing ... - OCP-IP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?