spartan 3 on 4 layers

Inductance should also go down with the thickness of the copper, though at some point you run into the skin effect. Thicker copper might be cheaper than more layers.

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt
Loading thread data ...

Glen, Good point, but sometimes thicker copper can be a mixed blessing, the etching process can screw up if the copper's too thick. Thinner copper allows narrower tracks. This can let you squeeze your routing together, to get wide tracks to where you need it. Important if you're routing power on a routing layer. On the other hand, thick copper helps heat transfer. Another classic engineering compromise! Best, Syms.

Reply to
Symon

Except for the leaded S3 packages {VQ/TQ/PQ}, which are still conspicuously absent from table 23.

Other table 23 oddities:

1) Why are the SSO pin limits for those spiffy current mode differential drivers so low, nearly the same as for the high drive single ended I/O standards?

Answer Record 19972 still says "Because the Spartan-3 LVDS driver is very balanced, its switching causes a negligible amount of transient current. As a result, SSOs are not a problem."

2) Why are the table 23 SSO limits for the older voltage-mode differential output drivers {LVPECL,BLVDS} identical to those of the newer current-mode drivers {LVDS,LDT,RSDS} ? 3) Why do the input-only differential parallel DCI standards show up in the SSO table?

Brian

Reply to
Brian Davis

I was suggesting it for the power and ground planes, but I don't know which combinations of mixing different thicknesses are allowed.

Is a four layer board built from two 2-layer boards etched separately and then put together with an insulation layer in between? It might be that both sides of the separate boards would have to be the same.

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt

They are called "cores".

That is called "prepreg".

That is usually the case, although it is possible to build up copper thickness by plating e.g. the outer layers.

Regards, Allan

Reply to
Allan Herriman

Glen, Allan, For a four layer board, I think it is possible to have a core, with prepreg on either side, overlaid with foil for the outer copper layers. I use something like this in my microvia boards, the prepreg is laserable. Probably more expensive though. As for whether thicker copper is useful on layers inside the board for SI reasons, I expect the limiting factor is the via + track + lead frame inductance to the pad, rather than the plane inductance. Good for thermal reasons though. Cheers, Syms.

Reply to
Symon

That's because the lead frame has buggered your SI before you've even started your PCB.

The idea is that if the voltage mode drivers switch simultaneously in opposite directions, the current through the Vcco pins stays constant, so the lead/trace inductance doesn't screw things up.

Dunno!

Reply to
Symon

(after I asked about thicker copper on some layers)

The suggestion was to improve the ground plane by making it thicker. To reduce via inductance you need as many of them as you can get. (Inductors in parallel.) The OP wanted a four layer board instead of following the suggested two ground and two power planes.

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt

Brian,

See below,

Aust> Aust>

LVDS is a low current driver, but the LVPECL is two single ended drivers with external resistors, so it has significant current.

Even LVDS has a restriction, but not nearly that of a larger driver (more current). Unless I am missing something?

??? I'll have to ask Steve K.

Because they draw current for the parallel termiantion, and the restriction is for current drain on the Vcco/Gnd pins in the bank.

Reply to
Austin Lesea

I just realised, making it thicker will only reduce its resistance. Its inductance won't change. The inductance is determined by the loop area of the current path. Think about it, when you calculate the inductance of a coil, you don't need to know the wire diameter, just the diameter and number of turns. Best, Syms.

Reply to
Symon

(snip regarding decreasing inductance by thicker ground planes)

The coil formula doesn't work so well for a ground plane, but I do think you are right. The volume occupied by flux is staying (about) the same. As a coil is stretched into a straight wire its inducance decreases. Then, as the wire gets larger it also decreases but that is because the field spread out more.

I think, though, that more vias still decreases the inductance until they get so close that there is a large field overlap bewteen them.

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt

No data for PQ-208. No data for PCI33_2 or PCI66_3. (Page 25.)

There is a note at the end of the table that says: The numbers in this table are recommendations that assume sound board layout practice. But that's hard to test or measure.

I'm not trying to pick on Xilinx. Most data sheets I look at don't even have that sort of footnote. But this is a hard problem area. How good does "sound board layout" have to be?

How/what would you specify if you were writing the data sheet?

If you were on a jury for a big legal battle, how would you decide if a design was "sound" enough?

Anybody got PCI running on a PQ-208 with only 4 layers? :) Is that a silly idea?

--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California.  So are all my
other mailboxes.  Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Hal Murray

Agreed, as you said earlier "Inductors in parallel". The current is shared between the vias. I think you're right about the total inductance increasing as the two (say) vias get close as well, food for thought. Is that because of the mutual inductance between the two current loops? Time to crack out a text book! An interesting discussion, thanks Glen! Best, Syms.

Reply to
Symon
< re. the missing leaded package SSO data >

Yes, and the poorer on-die power distribution of those same leadframes makes adhering to those (missing) SSO guidelines even more important than in the BGA parts.

Xilinx has two flavors of differential driver: 1) the older style, voltage-mode, pseudo-differential, switch-two-CMOS-outputs-with-an-external-resistive-attenuator

which they say doesn't balance that well :

formatting link

2) the 'real' balanced current-mode drivers of the V2/V2P/S3, which the Answer Records say is not a factor in SSO limits

So, I'd expected to see much better SSO numbers for the 'real' LVDS drivers than for the older 'pretend' ones, but DS099, table 23, says both types have a four-pair SSO limit per VCCO-GND pair.

Brian

Reply to
Brian Davis

I'd also expected to see much better numbers for the current-mode drivers, but the Spartan3 SSO table that you referenced says otherwise: Excerpts from DS099-3, v1.4, Table 23 SSO outputs per VCCO/GND pair

Single ended: LVCMOS33 Fast 16mA 7 pins LVCMOS33 Fast 24mA 3 pins

Current-mode: LVDS_25 4 pairs (8 pins) RSDS_25 4 pairs

Psuedo-differential: BLVDS_25 4 pairs LVPECL_25 4 pairs

Which lists the current mode LVDS drivers as having the same low SSO pin limit (4 pairs) as the LVPECL drivers, and pretty much the same pin limit as does LVCMOS33/FAST/16mA.

I'd hoped that was the reason; but since those same "4"'s were next to every type of differential I/O in the table, I thought it might be a block pasting error when compiling the datasheet.

Following up on this:

In "normal" operation, these on-chip DCI terminator pairs have already been biased to 1.25 V, and experience a small balanced input swing (~0.8V), providing some measure of terminator VCCO current cancellation. In this "normal" mode of operation, in the BGA packages, they have a four pair SSO limit, possibly less for leaded parts.

But at post-configuration DCI startup, these terminators all switch simultaneously, unbalanced, from full stop to 1.25 V

Given that this unbalanced, larger swing should have poorer SSO limits than the "normal" operation, that's why I was concerned over on that other thread about using LVDS_25_DCI in the leaded packages.

Brian

Reply to
Brian Davis

V. good point. I wonder, do the IBIS models include the lead frame?

I got the difference between the two types, but failed to realise that they didn't balance so well. Thanks for the link you posted to Bob and Austin's exchange, I'm thinking again. I guess I'm very cynical, I think the "25 ps to 125 ps" time from the pad to the pin is a red herring. The synchronicity of the IOBs outputs switching on the die is what's important. Maybe the 'gate' or drive capacitance of the output transistors added to the bounce? Maybe a tiny bit! I guess that leaves the crossover current, but how long does that last? I thought the output structure stopped that happening. CMOS, right? And how did they measure it? Hmmm! Cheers, Syms.

Reply to
Symon

Then why does Xilinx sell the chips? They must be good for something.

Maybe there is a comment in some ap-note that says not to bother trying to implement PCI in a PQ-208 type package. (and explaining why) Or maybe it takes 8 layers, or ...

I haven't seen anything like that, but I haven't looked carefully and nobody has mentioned anything like that yet in this discussion. "Don't do that" might be the right answer.

--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California.  So are all my
other mailboxes.  Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Hal Murray

AFAIK, IBIS modeling ignores ground bounce & such.

Earlier versions of the S3 IBIS files used the SAME package model for ALL packages, from BGA through PQFP; the IBIS file had tiny entries for package parasitics, and Xilinx suggested a user-added Tline model to model the pin: uncoupled 65 ohm transmission line, 25-100 ps delay

from :

formatting link

Now, if what you're modeling is a transmission line, or behaves like one at the edge rates of interest, a Tline model is more appropriate than a single element lumped approximation; but to model a conventional leadframe package with an UNCOUPLED** Tline model seems rather optimistic.

Looking again today, the latest version (2.6) of the S3 IBIS files now has lumped parasitics for some of the leaded packages ( PQ208 and TQFP144, but not the VQ100 ). Note: XAPP475 has not yet been updated to address this modeling change.

The other concern I have with the Xilinx IBIS models is that they're still using an ancient version of IBIS (2.1), which doesn't support some of the newer IBIS features such as differential input parasitics. ( Which explains the lack of IBIS models for the _DT terminators in the V2Pro )

** I don't believe IBIS 2.1 supports modeling of pin-pin coupling

Brian

Reply to
Brian Davis

I see in XAPP475 they say that "Unfortunately, IBIS 3.2 still is not widely supported by simulators.". It wouldn't hurt to publish new IBIS3.2 or even

4.0 files alongside the old ones though! Thanks for a very informative post, much appreciated. Best, Syms.
Reply to
Symon

All,

IBIS 4.0 is now out for bid for the "golden parser."

Without a "golden parser", no one can say they adhere to the standard.

The last golden parser was back in the IBIS 1.2 days, so that is all anyone can lay claim to.

If you claim something more than that, you are not being entirely honest. Small errors in the IBIS file get rejected by various tools, and support mushrooms.

As well, not everyone implemented the changes in IBIS 2, 3.... the same way, or the simulators implementations were also not identical....

We have 200,000+ seats of software out there, and trying to blaze a new trail for IBIS is like pushing tons of wet spaghetti (hard work, and not very satisfying).

We are actively looking at when to fold in the new IBIS, but only after it is supported by the tools that allow us to succeed. Until then, we use what we have got, which includes the encrypted hspice versions for folks that have to have the "answer."

For the MGTs, no one can say if IBIS is adequate or not for differential signals at 10 Gbs, so we are sticking to methods that we know work. We do know that behavioral models are really fast, but also really inaccurate. If someone has a complete backplane simulation with extracted pcb parasitics (s parameters, complex lossy t-lines, connectors, pre-emphasis transmitter and adaptive receiver, etc.) that is within 5% of the behavioral model, I'd like to know how the miracle occurred.

Austin

Reply to
Austin Lesea

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.