Design Verification to Production Test Why Early Test Input Matters

Image of CEO of XJTAG Simon Payne Simon Payne, CEO, XJTAG |  Subscribe to LinkedIn newsletter

There is an important transition in almost every hardware development project.

The design has progressed through schematic capture, PCB layout, prototype manufacture, bring-up and verification.

The engineering team has worked to establish that the design behaves correctly across the operating conditions, component tolerances and variations the product is expected to encounter.

As the product moves towards production, another engineering challenge becomes increasingly important:

How are we going to test every board we manufacture?

That is where the requirements of production test begin to look rather different from those of design verification.

A Proven Design Isn’t the Same as a Production Test

The development team and production test team are ultimately working towards the same objective: confidence in the product.

But they approach that objective from different perspectives.

During development, engineers need to demonstrate that the design itself is correct.

They investigate interfaces, validate performance, exercise operating conditions and establish that the product meets its requirements.

Production test has a different task.

Once the design moves into manufacture, engineers need a repeatable way of determining whether each individual PCB has been assembled correctly.

And when one hasn’t, they need enough information to determine where the problem is likely to be.

Both are important, but they answer different questions.

The Design Influences the Test Long Before Production Begins

By the time a design approaches production, many of the decisions that influence how it can be tested have already been made.

The PCB determines which signals are physically accessible.

The circuitry determines which devices can be controlled and observed.

The JTAG architecture determines how Boundary Scan devices can be accessed.

Reset, enable and mode circuitry affects which parts of the board can be exercised independently.

Power architecture, buffers, multiplexers and connectors can all influence the eventual production test strategy.

Test engineers may already have had some involvement during development—and in many organisations they will.

The important point is that the earlier test requirements are considered, the more opportunity there is to make useful changes.

As the design progresses towards release, those options naturally become more constrained.

Give the Test Engineer More Options

Consider a peripheral connected to a Boundary Scan-enabled FPGA.

The FPGA may provide excellent access to the interface.

But suppose the peripheral’s reset can only be released once the processor is running application software.

Or perhaps a buffer sits between the FPGA and the peripheral, but its enable cannot be controlled independently during test.

The potential test path exists, but making practical use of it has become more difficult.

Identified during schematic development, the answer might be as simple as a resistor option, an alternative control path or access to an additional signal.

Identified after PCB layout or during an early production build—the available solutions are likely to be more limited.

This is why relatively small design decisions can have a disproportionate effect on testability later.

Production Testing Asks Different Questions

During development, one of the central questions is:

“Does this design operate correctly across the conditions it needs to support?”

Production test asks:

“Has this particular board been manufactured correctly?”

And if it hasn’t:

“Can we identify the likely fault quickly enough to diagnose, repair or reject it?”

In a production environment, those questions need to be answered repeatedly and efficiently.

A diagnostic process that is perfectly reasonable when investigating an occasional prototype may become impractical if it has to be repeated across every failed production board.

The test therefore needs to be repeatable.

The results need to be meaningful.

And ideally, a failure should provide useful information about where further investigation should begin.

Boundary Scan Can Help Bridge the Gap

This is one of the reasons Boundary Scan can be particularly valuable as a product moves from development towards manufacturing.

The structural tests created during prototype bring-up and verification don’t necessarily have to disappear once development progresses.

They can potentially become part of the production test strategy.

Tests that verify PCB connectivity during development can continue checking those same connections on manufactured boards.

Tests developed for memories, peripherals and interfaces may also be reusable.

That creates an opportunity to carry both engineering knowledge and test capability forward rather than starting again when the product reaches production.

Develop Once, Reuse Many Times

This can significantly increase the value of the original test development effort.

A Boundary Scan test might initially be created to provide confidence during prototype bring-up or design verification.

That same test capability can potentially support:

  • Prototype bring-up
  • Design verification
  • Production test
  • Repair and rework
  • Failure analysis
  • Service and support

The test doesn’t have to belong to one phase of the product lifecycle.

It can become an engineering asset that continues to provide value as the product moves from development into manufacture and beyond.

Test Engineers Need More Than a Working Design

As a product approaches production, the test team benefits from understanding not only how the product works, but how it was designed to be tested.

Which areas can Boundary Scan verify?

Which devices can be controlled independently?

Which tests proved particularly useful during development?

Which areas require application software?

Where are the known gaps in coverage?

What diagnostic information will be available when a test fails?

Answering those questions earlier makes the transition into production test much easier.

It also gives the test engineer an opportunity to identify areas where a relatively small design change could provide substantially greater test access.

Bring Development and Test Together Earlier

This doesn’t mean every hardware designer needs to become a production test engineer.

Nor does it mean the complete manufacturing test needs to exist before the first prototype is built.

It means giving the people responsible for production test an opportunity to contribute while their input can still influence the design.

The hardware engineer understands how the circuit is intended to operate and what must be demonstrated during design verification.

The test engineer brings a different perspective:

How can this be tested repeatedly?

How can this section be isolated?

Can this device be put into the required state without relying on the complete application?

If a board fails, what information will the test provide?

Bringing those perspectives together can produce a product that is not only well designed, but considerably easier to manufacture and support.

Avoid Making the Test Engineer Reverse-Engineer the Test Strategy

When testability has been considered during development, the production test engineer starts with a much stronger foundation.

They don’t have to discover late in the process whether an enable can be overridden.

They don’t have to find an unexpected way of disabling a watchdog.

They don’t have to discover that one inaccessible control signal prevents an otherwise testable interface from being exercised.

Instead, many of those questions have already been considered as part of the design.

The test engineer can then concentrate on developing the most effective production test rather than finding ways around avoidable hardware constraints.

A Better Handover

Moving a product towards manufacturing shouldn’t be a moment where one team simply finishes and another begins.

Ideally, knowledge moves with the product.

The design team understands what has been verified and where the difficult areas are.

The test team understands what must be proved repeatedly on each manufactured assembly.

Boundary Scan provides one way of carrying structural test capability between those stages.

And when test requirements have influenced the design early enough, the production test engineer has substantially more options available.

Closing Thought

Design verification and production test perform different jobs.

One establishes confidence that the design is correct.

The other helps establish that each manufactured board has been assembled correctly.

Thinking about both while the PCB can still be changed makes that transition considerably easier.

The objective isn’t to ask the test team to design the product.

It is to make sure that, when they need to develop an effective production test, the design hasn’t unnecessarily restricted the tools available to them.


Board Design Tip of the Week

Before your next design is released for layout, involve someone who understands how the product will eventually be tested in production.

Don’t ask them to develop the complete production test.

Ask: “Is there anything we could change now that would give you better control, observation or diagnostic access later?”

It might be a resistor option, an accessible enable, a controllable reset, a way of disabling a watchdog or a small change to the JTAG architecture.

These changes may have little impact on the product’s normal operation.

But they can give the test engineer considerably more freedom when each manufactured board needs to be tested quickly, consistently and with useful diagnostics.


Could boundary scan save time on your next design?

Discover how boundary scan can help you improve test coverage, diagnose faults faster and simplify board testing:

See what you can test with XJTAG.


Discover more about your board design with the Free XJTAG Layout Viewer.

To get started find out how the Free XJTAG Layout Viewer can help you see your board connections:

Download your Free XJTAG Layout Viewer today

“It’s Only a Small Board Change…” What Could Possibly Go Wrong? We recently spoke to an engineer about a new revision of an existing PCB. The message was: “It’s only an iterative change.” The implication was understandable: the design changes are small, so the additional test work should also be small. And they may be absolutely right. But it raises an important question: How do you know? A small PCB revision does not automatically mean a small test impact. How Much Test Work Does a Small PCB Revision Really Create? The answer depends less on how many things changed and more on what those changes affect. A reset signal may have moved. A buffer may have been added. A memory device may have been replaced. A previously unused FPGA pin may now be connected. A power rail or enable sequence may have changed. Each change may be small on the schematic, but if an existing test depends on it, the impact can be much greater. Every test makes assumptions about the hardware: which devices are fitted, how signals are connected, what can be controlled and observed, and how devices behave during test. Change one of those assumptions and the existing test may need to change too. What If the Change Is at the Centre of the Board? Now consider replacing the FPGA or processor at the heart of the design. Perhaps the new device performs essentially the same function and most of the surrounding circuitry is unchanged. It may look like a straightforward substitution. But that device may interact with a significant proportion of the board and therefore affect many existing tests. For teams using Boundary Scan, there is another important consideration: Is the BSDL file correct for the exact device and package now fitted? Boundary Scan software relies on the BSDL file to describe the device's pins, Boundary Scan cells, instructions and test capability. So a change that appears on the design change list as: “FPGA changed from A to B” could potentially affect considerably more of the existing test strategy than the change list initially suggests. This is why test effort isn't proportional to the number of changes. It depends on how central those changes are to the tests already developed. Regression Testing Isn't Just for Software Software engineers are familiar with regression testing. A small code change doesn't mean rewriting the entire application, but it does mean understanding what else could have been affected. PCB test deserves the same approach. For every revision, ask: What changed? Which existing tests depend on it? Which assumptions are still valid? Which tests can remain unchanged? Which tests need modifying? Is any additional test coverage required? The objective isn't to assume everything has changed. It's to avoid assuming nothing has. Reuse Should Still Be the Goal Last week, we looked at the value of reusing tests developed during bring-up through production, repair and support. A new board revision shouldn't change that principle. Good reusable tests should make iterative development easier. The aim is to preserve everything that remains valid and concentrate engineering effort only on the tests affected by the new design. Reuse the test — but validate the assumptions behind it. That is far more efficient than designing a complete test strategy again for every PCB revision. Closing Thought “It’s only an iterative change” may be completely true. And the additional test-development work may genuinely be trivial. But that should be the conclusion of an impact review, not the assumption at the start of one. When the next PCB revision is released, ask: What changed? Which of our existing tests depend on those changes? Are the assumptions behind those tests still valid? Then preserve everything that still works. The objective isn't to design a complete test from scratch. It's to know which tests need changing — and why. Board Design Tip of the Week When documenting your next PCB revision, add one more item to the change list: Test impact. For each design change, consider whether it affects: Component functionality or pinout Signal routing or connectivity Resets, enables or mode settings Power rails or sequencing Interfaces and control signals Physical test access Programming or configuration Existing test assumptions And if Boundary Scan forms part of your test strategy, also check whether the change affects the BSDL/device model or JTAG architecture. A short review at this stage can prevent a “small change” from becoming an unexpected test-development problem when the revised boards arrive. Discover more about your board design with the Free XJTAG Layout Viewer. To get started find out how the Free XJTAG Layout Viewer can help you see on your board: Download your Free XJTAG Layout Viewer today
Don’t Throw Away the Tests That Got Your Prototype Working The first prototype arrives and the engineering team begins the process of proving the hardware. Connections are checked. Memories are exercised. Peripherals are tested. Problems are found, understood and fixed. Eventually, the board works. And then something slightly strange can happen. Much of the test capability that helped get it working is never used again. Bring-Up Creates More Than a Working Board During bring-up, engineers build up a significant amount of knowledge about the hardware. They learn how to initialise devices. They discover which signals need to be controlled. They find ways of checking memories and peripherals. They work out how to distinguish between a software problem and a hardware problem. Sometimes this knowledge becomes a formal test. Sometimes it is a small utility written by one engineer. Sometimes it is little more than a sequence of commands, measurements or notes that helped prove a particular part of the board. But whatever form it takes, it has value. The question is: What happens to it once the prototype works? A Test Shouldn't Necessarily Be Used Only Once Some bring-up tests are naturally temporary. But many aren't. If a test helped prove that an interface was correctly connected on the first prototype, there may be no reason why the same test cannot help verify that interface again later. The purpose simply changes. During bring-up, the question might be: “Did we design this correctly?” During production: “Has this particular board been assembled correctly?” During repair: “Which part of this board is no longer behaving correctly?” Different stages of the product lifecycle. But often the same underlying hardware evidence is useful. Turn Engineering Knowledge into Something Repeatable There is an important difference between knowing how to test something and having a test that someone else can run. If an engineer manually performs a sequence of checks during bring-up, that knowledge may disappear when the project moves on. If the same procedure is documented and automated where practical, it becomes reusable. That means the effort invested during development can continue providing value. Instead of every new team starting again, the product carries some of its diagnostic knowledge with it. Boundary Scan Is Particularly Well Suited to Reuse Boundary Scan can be especially useful here because structural tests are based on the hardware and its connectivity rather than depending entirely on the final application software. A test created to verify connections between devices during bring-up can potentially verify those same connections during manufacturing. A test used to exercise a memory, peripheral or other accessible device may remain useful during fault diagnosis. The reason for running the test changes. The physical hardware being checked does not. That gives structural tests the potential to move with the product from development into production and later support. Don't Lose the Tests at Handover When a product moves from development into manufacturing, the handover typically includes things such as: Schematics PCB data BOMs Manufacturing information Firmware Programming files Test specifications It is worth asking whether the diagnostic capability developed during bring-up should be treated in exactly the same way. Which tests proved particularly useful? Which interfaces can be independently verified? Which procedures helped isolate previous faults? Which tools or scripts should be retained? If that knowledge stays with one engineer rather than moving with the product, its value can easily be lost. One Investment, Several Uses The same test capability can potentially support: Prototype bring-up — establishing confidence in the first hardware. Design verification — proving that important areas of the PCB behave as intended. Production — checking whether individual assemblies have been manufactured correctly. Repair and rework — confirming whether a fault has been successfully corrected. Failure analysis — narrowing down where to investigate a returned board. Long-term support — providing engineers with diagnostic capability years after the original development team has moved on. That starts to change the way we think about the cost of developing a test. It isn't necessarily an investment for one stage of the project. It can be an investment in the product's entire lifecycle. Where XJTAG Fits This is one reason an XJTAG project can become more than something used to bring up the first prototype. Once the design information, device models and tests have been developed, that work can potentially be reused as the product moves into manufacturing, repair and support. Rather than rebuilding the test strategy at every stage, the same underlying project can evolve with the hardware. The value isn't simply in running another test. It is in preserving and reusing what the engineering team has already learned. Closing Thought Getting the first prototype working shouldn't necessarily be the point at which your test investment ends. It can be the point at which that investment starts becoming reusable. The tests that help an engineer understand board number one may also help manufacturing verify board number 1,000—or help a service engineer understand a failure years later. A good test isn't just something you run. It's engineering knowledge you can reuse. Board Design Tip of the Week When your next prototype reaches the point where everyone agrees it is working, don't immediately move on. Ask: “Which of the tests and diagnostic procedures we've developed should follow this product into production and support?” Capture them. Document them. Automate them where practical. And consider keeping them under the same configuration control as the rest of the product. The knowledge required to prove the first board works may be just as valuable when a board much later in the product's lifecycle doesn't. Discover more about your board design with the Free XJTAG Layout Viewer. To get started find out how the Free XJTAG Layout Viewer can help you see on your board: Download your Free XJTAG Layout Viewer today
Your Board Already Has a Powerful PCB Test Capability The design has been verified, production starts, the first boards come through test successfully. Then one fails. That is the moment you discover how good your test strategy really is. Finding a fault on a prototype is one thing. The development team knows the design intimately, has access to schematics, debug software and bench equipment, and may be prepared to spend hours investigating an unusual problem. Production is different. When a manufactured board fails, the question isn't simply: “Does it work?” It becomes: “What's wrong with this particular board, and how quickly can we find the fault?” Prototype Debugging and Production Diagnosis Are Different During development, engineers are often investigating the design itself. Is the interface configured correctly? Does the circuit behave as expected? Are the component values right? Does the software initialise the hardware correctly? By the time a product reaches production, the design should already have been proven. The production test is answering a different question: Has this particular assembly been manufactured correctly? That changes the nature of the investigation. A Failure Needs to Narrow the Search Imagine a board fails because an interface is not responding. A basic production test may tell you exactly that: Interface failed. But the engineer still has to work out why. Is there an open connection? A short? A missing component? A badly soldered pin beneath a BGA? An incorrectly fitted device? Or is the problem somewhere else entirely? A useful test strategy should progressively reduce that search area. The closer the test can get from: “Something is wrong.” to: “Start looking here.” the more useful it becomes. This Is Where Structural Information Helps Functional testing is extremely valuable in production because it proves that the completed product behaves as expected. But when a functional test fails, the symptom can sometimes cover a large area of hardware. Structural testing provides a different layer of evidence. Boundary Scan can often verify inaccessible PCB connections independently of the application software and relate unexpected results back to the nets and devices involved. That can help answer an important question: Is this an assembly problem, and if so, where should we investigate first? Boundary Scan does not replace functional production testing. It complements it by providing another way to understand the hardware beneath the symptom. One Failed Board May Be Manageable If one board fails, spending an hour investigating it may not seem significant. But what happens when ten fail? Or fifty? Or when the same type of fault appears repeatedly? At that point, diagnostic time starts affecting manufacturing throughput. That is why the economics of production test aren't determined only by how quickly passing boards can be tested. They are also influenced by how efficiently failed boards can be diagnosed. A fast PASS/FAIL test followed by hours of fault finding may not be as efficient as it first appears. Don't Wait for the First Failure to Think About Diagnosis There is an important Design for Test lesson here. When the first failed production board arrives, the PCB design is already complete. If a reset cannot be controlled, an enable is inaccessible or an important interface cannot be exercised independently, the test engineer has to work within those constraints. The opportunity to make a simple schematic change may have disappeared months earlier. This is why testability shouldn't only ask: “Can we detect a failure?” It should also ask: “If it fails, what information will we have?” That question is much easier to answer while the schematic is still open. Carry What You Learned During Bring-Up into Production There is another opportunity that is often overlooked. Structural tests developed during prototype bring-up don't necessarily need to be discarded once the design is working. Tests that proved connectivity, memories, peripherals or interfaces during development may also provide useful coverage in production. That means the effort invested in understanding the first prototypes can potentially become part of the manufacturing test strategy. Instead of starting again, knowledge moves forward with the product. Closing Thought A string of passing boards doesn't really test your diagnostic strategy. The first failure does. That is when you discover whether your test simply detects a problem or actually helps the engineer understand it. And the difference between knowing: “This board failed.” and: “This is where you should start looking.” can determine whether the problem is diagnosed in minutes, investigated for hours or placed on a growing bone pile marked: Investigate later. The best production tests don't just catch faults. They help engineers understand them. Board Design Tip of the Week Before releasing your next design, choose three realistic manufacturing faults. For example: An open connection beneath a BGA A short between two adjacent signals An incorrectly fitted peripheral Then ask: “If this happened on the production line, what would our test actually tell us?” If the answer is simply: FAIL there may still be work to do. Discover more about your board design with the Free XJTAG Layout Viewer. To get started find out how the Free XJTAG Layout Viewer can help you see on your board: Download your Free XJTAG Layout Viewer today