- Research Article
- 10.37665/smmdyxr71512
A Case Study for Implementing 1149.1 Boundary Scan
- Sep 01, 2002
- SMTA International
- G Noeninckx
Boundary Scan is being added to the manufacturing test strategy. With no experience, where do you start? An organization venturing into this new territory must adopt changes in Test and Design processes to achieve a successful implementation as an enhancement to board test. Highlighting the benefits for the effort is key to getting buy-in from all groups involved from concept to product, especially the Design group. As experience is gained, less interaction between groups is required to implement Boundary Scan, but that relationship can never be severed without compromising the design or manufacturability. Addressing the issues of Design For Test (DFT) early in a product life-cycle will prevent costly oversights and mistakes. A methodical approach is necessary to design in Boundary Scan testability. Very complex designs can require significant design effort during schematic capture that hardware developers are not accustomed to providing. Often times, complex IC access points for developers share pins with the IEEE 1149.1 Test Access Port (TAP). Care must be taken to prevent a manufacturable Boundary Scan design from disabling a design debug port (and vice versa), requiring close coordination between Test and Development during this phase of the design. In addition, both groups must deal with the requirements for signal integrity so that test and programming time targets can be achieved. Solutions may include dedicated Boundary Scan components designed into the product and test fixture. Upon schematic completion, generation of test and programming vectors follows. (Vectors are the logic bits that are loaded into the Boundary Scan registers – taken from the term for a one-dimensional array.) The Automatic Test Pattern Generator (ATPG) tool must be capable of handling the specific requirements of your design such as programming of persistent memory and management of partitioning devices. Details of vector generation are beyond the scope of this discussion, however care and effort to ensure a match between the design netlist and physical manufacturing to achieve maximum test coverage may require changes to the development and production cycle of a new design and should be considered in scheduling resources. Bringing all of the prior efforts together to test a product doesn't complete the process. Deficient Boundary Scan implementations in ICs and oversights in the design can result in significant delays during the test of initial prototypes, delays that have never been experienced in a test cycle. These must be overcome through interaction with the part suppliers and the design group, and rectified to satisfy test coverage requirements. This method will be explained in generic terms to assist the reader in employing the technique in a product design with specific examples given from the implementation of boundary scan in a dense and complex Motorola Cellular Infrastructure board-set. The shift in test method for Motorola from bed-of-nails to Boundary Scan was intensified by the incorporation of a system-level 1149.1 architecture to re-use designed-in product features for postproduction testing.
Read more