Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 146650

Article: 146650
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Andy <jonesandy@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 24, 8:57=A0pm, Symon <symon_bre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 2) Only nutters have power planes. They use up valuable space in which
> you could more profitably use a ground plane.

Surely you mean "Only nutters have separately filtered power planes
for individual general purpose digital IC supplies."

Otherwise, suggesting that planes (partial or full) are not needed for
power distribution to digital circuitry is ludicrous.

> If anyone wants to disagree with this advice, I want a specific, first
> person example where what I suggest is wrong. I don't want to hear what
> some 'guru' told you on a course you paid for. :-)

Why should we supply any more evidence than you have?

Andy



Article: 146651
Subject: Re: Xilinx ISE Tcl Script Error
From: "jjplaw" <jjplawnewera@n_o_s_p_a_m.n_o_s_p_a_m.yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:19:07 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Paul: 
Actually the exe is a part of another software. I cant control how it calls
the tcl script. I can only modify the tcl script.

Alan:
If i open a tclsh shell and ran 'source $env(XILINX)/bin/xilinx-init.tcl',
i'll get the same 2 error that you got.

I did raise this question in the Xilinx forum. A Xilinx employee gave me
the following solution:

[1] Create a second tcl script (second.tcl) that contains all the xilinx
tcl commands that i want to use.
[2] Include the following command in the first tcl script (first.tcl)
exec xtclsh second.tcl

So when the exe calls first.tcl, it'll in turn pass second.tcl to a xtclsh
shell to be evaluated.

It seems to be a bit of a workaround but it works.	   
					
---------------------------------------		
Posted through http://www.FPGARelated.com

Article: 146652
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: austin <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thomas,

Some thoughts:

> 1. Filtering of IC-supply-voltage
> While it is quite standard to filter e.g. the PLL-supply voltages of a
> FPGA, there are some suggestions to filter the supply-voltage of every
> IC (CPU, FPGA, memory, ...) on the PCB with a ferrite-bead + C.
> (Consequently, this also means that every IC has it's own Vdd-island
> in the power-plane.) Does this work?

You must be using a non-Xilinx device:  our requirements are clearly
spelled out in our user's guides.  And, we do not require filtering
the supply to our clock tile PLL in V5, V6, nor S6.

The MGT's do require filtering, and again this is covered in our
user's guides.  If you chose not to follow our guides, then it is up
to you to prove the system meets your requirements.

> 2. Return-path on Vdd-plane
> It is pretty clear that a solid ground-plane is required for return-
> path of I/O-signals. Most people also agree, that a power-plane will
> also do this job. But is this only because of the bypass-caps? Or is
> the "native" return-current flowing on ground when the output-driver
> is sinking and on Vdd when the output-driver is sourcing (assuming a
> high-impedance destination), i.e. it would be perfect to have both
> planes close to the signal-line?

Again, our plane and signal layer, and its stack-up, is clearly
documented.  Our patented "SparseChevron" technique for IO signal
integrity is superb at reducing ground bounce from SSO (simultaneous
switching outputs).

> 3. Shields of connectors, chassis ground
> Most PCBs have one or more connectors with shields (e.g. USB, RJ45,
> VGA, RS-232,...) Do you connect these directly to circuit-ground? Or
> with C and R in parallel? Or do you have some kind of "frame-ground"?
> Have you the mounting holes grounded to the chassis? All or just one?

Ah, now it gets interesting:  you won't find this in any guide!

Commonly the entire enclosure is a Faraday shield, and is considered
the safety ground, or earth ground, and gets connected to the third
wire ground of the power distribution system (cold water pipe ground/
earth ground/ safety ground).

Now, what you do with that safety ground inside the box, with respect
to your common signal ground is up to you.  A good choice is a hard
connection (no RC) at ONE POINT, as close as possible to where the
safety ground enters the enclosure.  Now, if each interface has its
own safety ground/ shield ground, each of these is terminated on the
Faraday enclosure ground, on the OUTSIDE.  Once the connector leads
enter the enclosure, you DO NOT connect the shield to the circuitry
(it is ONLY connected at that one point described earlier).

Signal grounds inside cables terminate on your pcb ground.  If you
have very long cables between boxes, and there may be a safety ground
voltage difference between enclosures, then the signal grounds may be
only connected at one end, or capacitive coupled at both ends, or some
other solution.  If there is as much as 3 volts AC of safety ground
imbalance (not an unusual requirement), signals may have to be large
swing (like RS232), or differential (RS422) which detail how to be
wired to avoid problems with safety ground voltage differences between
boxes.

Imagine a ESD strike of 10 kv:  it travels from your finger, to the
enclosure, and then remains on the outside, wrapping around until it
gets to the safety ground.  Any opening, a joint without a screw more
than 3" (75mm), will allow the sheet of charge from the ESD to enter
the enclosure, race along the inside surface, and cause your pcb to go
stupid.  Be careful about ESD zaps to display indicators, push
buttons, and switches! Often these displays and controls have to
carefully engineered to prevent ESD zaps from entering the enclosure!

Similarly, an ESD zap to a cable should travel to the enclosure, and
hence back to safety ground, never having a reason to enter the
enclosure.

Once you think you did everything right, then testing with a zapper is
the only way to prove you have met your requirement.

If you are building something that has no ESD requirements, it may
still have RFI/EMI requirements.  All the same rules apply (if the
enclosure is properly designed for ESD, it is very likely also the
best RFI/EMI design as well).  If you have no RFI/EMI requirements,
then you are building a toy, and you probably just don't want them to
be returned to the store, so it is still a good idea to do a good job
with ESD and RFI/EMI, but perhaps cutting corners to reduce costs...

Austin

Article: 146653
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Symon <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:12:43 +0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 3/25/2010 4:03 PM, austin wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> Some thoughts:
>
>> 1. Filtering of IC-supply-voltage
>> While it is quite standard to filter e.g. the PLL-supply voltages of a
>> FPGA, there are some suggestions to filter the supply-voltage of every
>> IC (CPU, FPGA, memory, ...) on the PCB with a ferrite-bead + C.
>> (Consequently, this also means that every IC has it's own Vdd-island
>> in the power-plane.) Does this work?
>
> You must be using a non-Xilinx device:  our requirements are clearly
> spelled out in our user's guides.  And, we do not require filtering
> the supply to our clock tile PLL in V5, V6, nor S6.
>
It's hard to imagine a board without some non-Xilinx devices on it 
somewhere. Some of these devices may need isolation from the noise 
generated by the FPGA. Power islands are a good way to deal with this.
Syms.

Article: 146654
Subject: Re: Ring Oscillator -> counter differences
From: Jason Thibodeau <jason.p.thibodeau@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:18:00 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 03/25/2010 01:20 AM, -jg wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:41 pm, Jason Thibodeau<jason.p.thibod...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> When I run this on my spartan 3e, I get different values for each and
>> every run. I would assume these values would stay the same. What
>> explanation is there for their differences? Power fluctuations?
>
> ??  Err ?
> 'stay the same' - did you really mean what you wrote ?
> Of course they will change.
>   Even an Atomic clock varies...
>
>
>   Smarter would be to post numbers on how much they changed, as
> 'different values' has no useful information.
>
>   A ring oscillator, is a Thermometer, and a Voltmeter,
> and a process-quantifier - all coming out in one number.
>
> -jg
>
>
>

Thinking about it further, I suppose I didn't mean stay exactly the 
same. I did expect differences, and I guess I confirm with you all that 
what I am seeing is normal. I have typically less than 5% fluctuations 
between runs.

Thanks for all your input. It gives me a bit to think about.

-- 
Jason Thibodeau

Article: 146655
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Symon <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:53:20 +0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 3/25/2010 2:55 PM, Andy wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:57 pm, Symon<symon_bre...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>> 2) Only nutters have power planes. They use up valuable space in which
>> you could more profitably use a ground plane.
>
> Surely you mean "Only nutters have separately filtered power planes
> for individual general purpose digital IC supplies."

I meant what I said. And don't call me Shirley.
>
> Otherwise, suggesting that planes (partial or full) are not needed for
> power distribution to digital circuitry is ludicrous.

In general, and especially in the context of the OP's points about using 
power planes as signal return paths, I contend that power planes on 
digital boards are expensive and a waste of time. Indeed, they can be 
counter productive. There are many power supplies on the board. For 
example, an FPGA may typically have different supplies on different I/O 
banks, plus a core supply, plus an DCM/PLL supply. Would you have a 
plane for every supply? If you use a single PCB layer for two supplies, 
what happens when a signal on an adjacent layer crosses the gap? What 
happens when you want to isolate a device from a noisy supply?
Far simpler to use the power islands mentioned in the OP, and use 
multiple ground planes for return paths.
>
>> If anyone wants to disagree with this advice, I want a specific, first
>> person example where what I suggest is wrong. I don't want to hear what
>> some 'guru' told you on a course you paid for. :-)
>
> Why should we supply any more evidence than you have?
>
Is that the royal 'we'? :-)

> Andy
>
>


Article: 146656
Subject: USB 3.0 implementation on FPGA
From: "Maurice Branson" <traubenuss@arcor.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:03:29 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi everyone,


I'm just about to start an implementation of a USB 3.0 interface in VHDL for 
data transfer from FPGA to a PC and vice versa. The core should acts as a 
USB device for the PC. The core is intended for an FPGA projects where an 
"easy" interface to a PC is needed. Higher data rates as defined by the 3.0 
standard should be possible with the implementation.



Questions are:

Does anyone have experience in implementing a USB interface?

What are the external chipsets and components respectively required?

What about standard compliance? Which standard? Which version?

What is the defference between USB Server + USB Client in this respect and 
which one should I implement to get the desired functionality?



Thank You Friends For All Your Kind Support!




Article: 146657
Subject: Re: USB 3.0 implementation on FPGA
From: "MK" <mk@nospam.please>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:25:38 -0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Maurice Branson" <traubenuss@arcor.de> wrote in message 
news:4bab9732$0$6875$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> Hi everyone,
>
>
> I'm just about to start an implementation of a USB 3.0 interface in VHDL 
> for data transfer from FPGA to a PC and vice versa. The core should acts 
> as a USB device for the PC. The core is intended for an FPGA projects 
> where an "easy" interface to a PC is needed. Higher data rates as defined 
> by the 3.0 standard should be possible with the implementation.
>
>
>
> Questions are:
>
> Does anyone have experience in implementing a USB interface?
>
> What are the external chipsets and components respectively required?
>
> What about standard compliance? Which standard? Which version?
>
> What is the defference between USB Server + USB Client in this respect and 
> which one should I implement to get the desired functionality?
>
>
>
> Thank You Friends For All Your Kind Support!
>
>
>

You will find a lot of information on www.usb.org

While I don't mean to be unhelpful the questions you are asking make me feel 
that you are unlikely to get far with this. USB3 is not easy. If you don't 
absolutely have to have the USB3 super speed then USB2 high speed (480 
Mbit/s) is a lot easier - the 'least brain' approach is to use an FTDI chip 
for the interface. www.ftdichip.com

Michael Kellett



Article: 146658
Subject: Re: USB 3.0 implementation on FPGA
From: "Maurice Branson" <traubenuss@arcor.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:41:48 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thanks, Michael!

I will have a look at the URL you postet. Anyway I want this project to be 
one from which I learn a lot. So I am not interested in the 'least brain' 
approach but to do as much as I can in VHDL and just use a chipset for the 
physical link.




Article: 146659
Subject: Re: Why hardware designers should switch to Eclipse
From: nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:02:58 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Patrick Maupin <pmaupin@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 24, 6:57=A0pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>> My experience is that people don't like change and like to stay stuck
>> in old unproductive methods. Sometimes you need to push people
>> forward.
>
>My experience is that learning a new tool is only worthwhile if you
>are going to use it a LOT and gain a LOT from it.  My experience is
>also that a cursory examination of a tool can usually give you a
>reasonable feel for whether this is going to happen or not.

Which is why Eclipse is such a fine tool: it supports a lot of
languages and platforms so you'll need to learn one tool and get going
with many languages and platforms.

>> Thats rubbish. Perhaps true for the simple IDEs intended to give
>> people a quick start. I don't like those either.
>
>See, those are the ONLY ones I like.
>
>> Eclipse is a whole other story though. It is designed to aid working
>> on complex projects. I have several projects that share a common code
>> base and some of those projects result in 10 to 20 slightly different
>> binaries. Eclipse helps me to organize such projects. A makefile
>> keeping all the defines and projects definitions apart would be a
>> nightmare. And that is besides the many aids Eclipse provides like
>> having a list of types, variables, defines and functions from a file,
>> showing call hierarchies, shading parts that are not getting compiled,
>> refactoring (renaming symbols), comparing versions from a version
>> control repository, etc, etc.
>
>No, the nightmare is finding the configuration button to set the
>project exactly right.  IMHO, if you delegate the complex stuff to an
>engine like this, you lose control over it rather than gain control.
>And once again, I will refer you to Linux -- is your project really
>more complicated, with more options, than the kernel?  Do you really
>think all the kernel hackers are Luddites?

Yes, they are. My job includes kernel hacking and I'm finding the
total lack of proper documentation, comments and the obfusticated C++
objects simulation in C a big hurdle. IMHO the audio handling in the
Linux kernel is a complete mess. Kernel hackers may like the Linux
kernel the way it is now but in reality it is a cow's turd you want to
stir in as little as possible.

>> Ofcourse you can do all this with a command line tools but it is way
>> less productive and more prone to errors than having everything
>> presented to you in a GUI. I never liked developing while peeking
>> through a key-hole. When I need to work on an software project I
>> always load the source into Eclipse because it allows me to examine
>> the structure of a piece of software very quickly. Where is this
>> function called from? Just open the call hierarchy. What is this
>> define? Just move over it with the mouse pointer. Where is the define
>> or symbol declared? Shift-click and you'll have the answer. Open a .h
>> file for examination by shift-clicking on it.
>
>You haven't described anything in this paragraph that can't be done
>with a decent modern editor.

In that case Eclipse contains a decent modern editor.

>> Not to mention debugging. Its all there. And I forgot the best thing:
>> Eclipse works the same way for different languages. Writing and
>> debugging a C/C++ program works the same way as debugging a PHP
>> script. Eclipse is about learning one workflow and apply it to any
>> language.
>
>Ahh, THERE is a difference between editors and IDEs.  Yes, debugging.
>Well, I write most of my software in Python and spend very little time
>debugging.  Most of my Verilog tests are self-checking, and I
>sometimes look at waveforms, but very little else.  I don't think I
>have personally set a breakpoint in about 15 years, since I used to
>have to write C/C++, so this is not very high on my priority list (and

I wonder how much time you spend on finding a typo. A debugger is most
helpfull in those cases. I use the debugger mostly for verification so
I'm absolutely sure my software does what it is supposed to do and not
that the answer seems right.

>Of course, one probable reason for that is that somebody started to
>document how impact works in batch mode, and gave up because the
>software sucks so badly that you can't accurately describe its
>behavior without calling attention to just how bad it really is.

LOL!

-- 
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Article: 146660
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Andy <jonesandy@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I agree that power islands, where required, are OK, but it was not
clear what your original statement was recommending. Under what
circumstances power islands are required is up for debate.

Whether they are used as signal shield layers (for HF return currents)
is dependent up on the application, whether traces can be routed
without crossing between different islands, and whether or not adding
additional layers for additional ground planes is a good trade.

No sir, I'm just part of the common 'we'  (the same group you adressed
as 'anyone'). Are you the Royal Symon?

Andy

Article: 146661
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: John_H <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 25, 10:55=A0am, Andy <jonesa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Otherwise, suggesting that planes (partial or full) are not needed for
> power distribution to digital circuitry is ludicrous.

Consider:

Why do we need power planes?  Are we trying to keep the "reference
rails" common between chips to a very high degree like we do with our
ground planes?

Here's an argument: distributed capacitance between the power and
ground planes are effective at the very high frequency end where
decoupling caps start to loose their effectiveness.  Oops!  Decoupling
at those very high frequencies off-chip doesn't appear to have much
effect [guru suggestion] and the larger the plane, the lower the self-
resonant frequency of that plane.  If you have an 11" board, your
quarter wavelength is about 250MHz.  Smaller planes are more effective
at pushing this high end of resonance out of the picture.  Smaller
planes means smaller distributed capacitance.

I can understand the need for power planes in analog or balanced
circuits where the decoupling effects are still prevalent at the
discrete level.  But for chip level?  Maybe not after all.

After my most recent board involvement I'm convinced that power
distribution would become less problematic with power distributed to
small, chip-local islands.  The small islands do help distribute the
decoupling caps over an area, affecting inter-cap resonance issues.

We've come a long way since the wire-wrap days of star configured
power and ground distribution.  But little attention has been paid to
the science behind power distribution.  There are tools that have
become available in recent years to help plan the power distribution
and avoid the troubles with plane resonance or interference between
capacitors.  The tiny islands might be one of the better ways to go.

Article: 146662
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Kolja Sulimma <ksulimma@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 25 Mrz., 02:10, Thomas Entner <thomas.ent...@entner-
electronics.com> wrote:

> 3. Shields of connectors, chassis ground
> Most PCBs have one or more connectors with shields (e.g. USB, RJ45,
> VGA, RS-232,...) Do you connect these directly to circuit-ground? Or
> with C and R in parallel? Or do you have some kind of "frame-ground"?
> Have you the mounting holes grounded to the chassis? All or just one?

The problem with this is, that for high frequencies and lower
frequencies different
setups work well.
That is why you find conflicting design guids for whether ground and
shield should
be connected and where they should be connected.

Kolja

Article: 146663
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Kolja Sulimma <ksulimma@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 25 Mrz., 02:57, Symon <symon_bre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 2) Only nutters have power planes. They use up valuable space in which
> you could more profitably use a ground plane.
Well, how do you create a low inductance path to the next capacitor?
You do not necessarily need a full plane, but making sure there is a
low inductance
path quickly gets very cumbersome.
A power plane is as good a reference for a signal as a ground plane
and the PCB stack
needs to be symmetric anyway. So what is the disadvantage of having a
power plane as
layer 2 when there is a gnd in layer N-2?
Putting a GND plane there instead will waste more space with no gain
(as you still need to
route the power signals somewhere) and putting no plane in that layer
will result in a bent board.

Also, adjacent power planes provide multi GHz decoupling that is next
to impossible to achieve with
soldered capacitors.

Kolja

Article: 146664
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:41:06 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
John_H <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 10:55?am, Andy <jonesa...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Otherwise, suggesting that planes (partial or full) are not needed for
>> power distribution to digital circuitry is ludicrous.
 
> Consider:
 
> Why do we need power planes?  Are we trying to keep the "reference
> rails" common between chips to a very high degree like we do with our
> ground planes?

Some drivers can pull up almost as much as down.  
 
> Here's an argument: distributed capacitance between the power and
> ground planes are effective at the very high frequency end where
> decoupling caps start to loose their effectiveness.  Oops!  Decoupling
> at those very high frequencies off-chip doesn't appear to have much
> effect [guru suggestion] and the larger the plane, the lower the self-
> resonant frequency of that plane.  If you have an 11" board, your
> quarter wavelength is about 250MHz.  

You need to consider the power and ground planes as a radial 
transmission line.  If you send a pulse in, the capactance per
unit (radial) distance increases as r, and the inductance decreases
as r.  The series inductance is mostly determined near the via,
as is the deficit in parallel capacitance.

> Smaller planes are more effective
> at pushing this high end of resonance out of the picture.  Smaller
> planes means smaller distributed capacitance.
 
> I can understand the need for power planes in analog or balanced
> circuits where the decoupling effects are still prevalent at the
> discrete level.  But for chip level?  Maybe not after all.

With the large currents required by some chips, it isn't so obvious.
There are processors with Idd over 100 amps.
 
> After my most recent board involvement I'm convinced that power
> distribution would become less problematic with power distributed to
> small, chip-local islands.  The small islands do help distribute the
> decoupling caps over an area, affecting inter-cap resonance issues.

-- glen

Article: 146665
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: James Salisbury <nntp.dsl.pipex.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:46:27 +0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thomas Entner wrote:
> As I think, many FPGA-designers have also to deal with EMC, I hope
> someone can help me here. We have currently some discussions (and
> doubts) regarding EMC-topics. As many people have different opinions
> on this subject, and it is quite hard to objectively verify, I would
> like to ask for some comments about following:
> 
> 1. Filtering of IC-supply-voltage
> While it is quite standard to filter e.g. the PLL-supply voltages of a
> FPGA, there are some suggestions to filter the supply-voltage of every
> IC (CPU, FPGA, memory, ...) on the PCB with a ferrite-bead + C.
> (Consequently, this also means that every IC has it's own Vdd-island
> in the power-plane.) Does this work?
Please dont! you will just add to the number of caps you need. You only 
need to do this with sensitive analogue parts and PLLs of FPGAs


> 
> 2. Return-path on Vdd-plane
> It is pretty clear that a solid ground-plane is required for return-
> path of I/O-signals. Most people also agree, that a power-plane will
> also do this job. But is this only because of the bypass-caps? Or is
> the "native" return-current flowing on ground when the output-driver
> is sinking and on Vdd when the output-driver is sourcing (assuming a
> high-impedance destination), i.e. it would be perfect to have both
> planes close to the signal-line?

Yes, the initial pulse of power at high edge rates first comes from on 
chip capacitance then from the power plane.
> 
> 3. Shields of connectors, chassis ground
> Most PCBs have one or more connectors with shields (e.g. USB, RJ45,
> VGA, RS-232,...) Do you connect these directly to circuit-ground? Or
> with C and R in parallel? Or do you have some kind of "frame-ground"?
> Have you the mounting holes grounded to the chassis? All or just one?
> 
Shields, mount the connectors with fingers touching a metallic box 
encloseing the circuit. Ensure that the ground planes are also bolted 
inside the box to the ground plane at regular intervals. Ensure that the 
  plateing on the inside of the box is conductive. To check that it is 
conductive make a brush out of some 16/0.2 mm wire, strip 25mm, and 12.5 
mm from the end bend through 90 degrees. Use your meter on continuity 
and gently use the two brushes as probes. If you do not get a low 
reading with light pressure, reject the case.

Lots of good stuff here http://www.compliance-club.com/ Particularly in 
the Keith Armstrong section

James

Article: 146666
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: John_H <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 25, 2:41=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> Some drivers can pull up almost as much as down. =A0

The issue isn't direct return current to the VCC drive transistor
because the current needs to head through the package to the VCC pin
to the power island in the first place which may be referenced to the
wrong plane anyway.  With effective decoupling near the source, the
return current goes from the driver to the on-chip decoupling, through
the package to the off-chip decoupling, to the plane(s) the signal
references against.  The smaller the overall current loops, the
smaller the EMI and crosstalk.

Do you want your huge current spikes to force your ground and power
planes to both fluctuate at equal amplitudes?  Or would you prefer
that your ground is more solid and the power plane sloppier?

The answers aren't obvious otherwise we wouldn't have guidelines that
specify not only a power plane but one 1uF, one 0.1uF, and one 0.01uF
capacitor per power and ground pin pair (of which there are 27 on the
part).  Bogus guidelines.

Article: 146667
Subject: XST optimization
From: Jason Thibodeau <jason.p.thibodeau@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:06:49 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Is it possible to get a detailed report out of XST, listing the gates it 
has optimized out of a design? XST is removing some gates that I 
specifically put into a design, and I want to prevent this. I can use 
the XST constraints file, but I'd like to see exactly what it is doing.

Googling hasn't turned up much, yet.

Thanks
-- 
Jason Thibodeau

Article: 146668
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:57:40 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
John_H <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:41?pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

>> Some drivers can pull up almost as much as down. ?
 
> The issue isn't direct return current to the VCC drive transistor
> because the current needs to head through the package to the VCC pin
> to the power island in the first place which may be referenced to the
> wrong plane anyway.  With effective decoupling near the source, the
> return current goes from the driver to the on-chip decoupling, through
> the package to the off-chip decoupling, to the plane(s) the signal
> references against.  The smaller the overall current loops, the
> smaller the EMI and crosstalk.

Well, in the TTL days everything was ground referenced.
With CMOS that is much less true.  In any case, it is series
inductance (bond wires, package pins, and PC traces) 
 
> Do you want your huge current spikes to force your ground and power
> planes to both fluctuate at equal amplitudes?  Or would you prefer
> that your ground is more solid and the power plane sloppier?

If I remember the early CMOS right, it was symmetric.  The switch
point was at (Vss+Vdd)/2.  As far as I know, that isn't true anymore.

In any case, there isn't much we can do about the inductances
inside the package.  Once it gets outside, we need low enough
inductance until it gets to a large enough capacitance.
 
> The answers aren't obvious otherwise we wouldn't have guidelines that
> specify not only a power plane but one 1uF, one 0.1uF, and one 0.01uF
> capacitor per power and ground pin pair (of which there are 27 on the
> part).  Bogus guidelines.

-- glen

Article: 146669
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Symon <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:58:34 +0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 3/25/2010 6:13 PM, Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> On 25 Mrz., 02:57, Symon<symon_bre...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> 2) Only nutters have power planes. They use up valuable space in which
>> you could more profitably use a ground plane.
> Well, how do you create a low inductance path to the next capacitor?
> You do not necessarily need a full plane, but making sure there is a
> low inductance
> path quickly gets very cumbersome.

You use copper pours and puddles around the IC to link its bypass 
capacitors.

> A power plane is as good a reference for a signal as a ground plane
> and the PCB stack
> needs to be symmetric anyway. So what is the disadvantage of having a
> power plane as
> layer 2 when there is a gnd in layer N-2?

1) The stack up does not need to be symmetrical wrt to planes and signal 
layers. However, you should make the substrates symmetrical. I have made 
several boards that aren't plane symmetrical. Talk to your PCB vendor. 
(Some of these boards were about 12x8 inches and didn't warp.)
2) When a signal trace passes from layer 1 to layer N-1, its reference 
plane has now changed. If this signal has a fast rise time, you have to 
use a bypass capacitor nearby, with its attendant inductance, and via 
inductance. With two ground planes, a regular via is enough.
3) You make an interesting point when you say that a power plane is as 
good as a ground plane as a reference. This is true. The problem comes 
that you now have two references in your system, and they will have some 
small noise voltage between them. You can reduce this to a small amount 
of noise with capacitors, but for each power plane, you have to do this. 
With multiple ground planes, they are all bonded together with the 
ground vias in your board.

> Putting a GND plane there instead will waste more space with no gain
> (as you still need to
> route the power signals somewhere) and putting no plane in that layer
> will result in a bent board.

Indeed, you need to put the powers somewhere. I recommend routing them 
all on a couple of dedicated layers away from signal traces. On an FPGA 
with at least 1.2V, 1.8V, 2.5V and 3.3V rails, which of these are you 
suggesting will be on a plane? All of them?

(Again, the bent board thing is a fallacy, I have found.)
>
> Also, adjacent power planes provide multi GHz decoupling that is next
> to impossible to achieve with
> soldered capacitors.
 >
We've been here before. It has a small amount of capacitance, which 
doesn't help you because the multi-GHz can't get up the vias and balls 
into the dice. Think of it this way, the reason a soldered capacitor 
doesn't give you multi-GHz is the fact that you have to connect to it. 
Actually in the ceramic of the cap is multi-GHz. It's the same with 
connecting your chips to a adjacent-plane-made capacitor.

Of course, what this arrangement does also provide is the possibility of 
multi-GHz resonances in your power planes. Lovely. Using a ground plane 
where ever a reference plane is needed makes the SI design very simple 
indeed.
>
> Kolja


Article: 146670
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Symon <symon_brewer@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:11:41 +0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 3/25/2010 6:04 PM, Andy wrote:
> I agree that power islands, where required, are OK, but it was not
> clear what your original statement was recommending. Under what
> circumstances power islands are required is up for debate.
>
> Whether they are used as signal shield layers (for HF return currents)
> is dependent up on the application, whether traces can be routed
> without crossing between different islands, and whether or not adding
> additional layers for additional ground planes is a good trade.
>
> No sir, I'm just part of the common 'we'  (the same group you adressed
> as 'anyone'). Are you the Royal Symon?
>
> Andy

Hi Andy,

You appear to have overlooked one of my queries. I'm interested in your 
response.

Would you have a plane for every supply?

I'm interested, because you posted that "suggesting that planes (partial 
or full) are not needed for power distribution to digital circuitry is 
ludicrous".

Thanks, HRH Symon.

p.s. I thought 'anyone' was singular. :-)


Article: 146671
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Thomas Entner <thomas.entner@entner-electronics.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Thank you everyone for the comments, it is an very interesting
reading.  I already got a lot of input for a new PCB-design, from
which we will do some variants to check which EMC-solution works best.
Looks like we need more variants than originally planned...

Thomas

Article: 146672
Subject: Re: EMC discussion
From: Andy <jonesandy@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mar 25, 3:11=A0pm, Symon <symon_bre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/25/2010 6:04 PM, Andy wrote:
>
> > I agree that power islands, where required, are OK, but it was not
> > clear what your original statement was recommending. Under what
> > circumstances power islands are required is up for debate.
>
> > Whether they are used as signal shield layers (for HF return currents)
> > is dependent up on the application, whether traces can be routed
> > without crossing between different islands, and whether or not adding
> > additional layers for additional ground planes is a good trade.
>
> > No sir, I'm just part of the common 'we' =A0(the same group you adresse=
d
> > as 'anyone'). Are you the Royal Symon?
>
> > Andy
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> You appear to have overlooked one of my queries. I'm interested in your
> response.
>
> Would you have a plane for every supply?
>
> I'm interested, because you posted that "suggesting that planes (partial
> or full) are not needed for power distribution to digital circuitry is
> ludicrous".
>
> Thanks, HRH Symon.
>
> p.s. I thought 'anyone' was singular. :-)

By 'plane', do you mean an entire PWB layer? In that case, no, an
entire layer is not always necessary (unless the circuitry served by
the power supply is distributed all over the board anyway.)

If by 'plane', you mean a broad area flooded with copper, but not
necessarily an entire PWB layer, then my answer is yes, a broad,
flooded area is necessary for power distribution to digital circuitry.

Andy

Article: 146673
Subject: Re: Xilinx Spartan6 Virtex6 Rollout
From: "Brad Smallridge" <bradsmallridge@dslextreme.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:26:34 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
> In North America, that is Avnet (as you have noted).  I suggest you
> call them on the phone and request quotes and delivery.

Why shouldn't Xilinx tell us when parts are available.
They are the mfg. They probably have a better idea.
Even an approximation would be better than nothing.

What's the sales politics in saying you're going to have
a package but don't say when?

Sorry this post went off in a software debate. I was really
only interested right now in the packages.

Brad Smallridge
AiVision 



Article: 146674
Subject: Re: PROM for Spartan 6 FPGA
From: Aditi <aditimis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,

Thank you for your suggestions.
I will take a look at them and get back to you if I have any more
questions.

Aditi.

On Mar 25, 4:55=A0am, Uwe Bonnes <b...@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-
darmstadt.de> wrote:
> John Larkin <jjlar...@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Aditi <aditi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Hi,
>
> > >I am planning to use a Spartan 6 FPGA (XC6SLX9) in my new design.
> > >Could someone suggest a reprogrammable PROM to configure this device,
> > >like the capacity of the Flash PROM needed ?
> > We're using a NuMonics serial flash chip, M25P16, SO-8, 16 mbits, to
> > program a Spartan6/45. Works fine. We just use a .BIT file in a B&K
> > USB programmer. We actually solder the SO-8 to a small adapter board
> > so we can plug it into a dip socket.
>
> You can also load the FPGA with some core and program the SPI Flash via J=
TAG
> with that core. This works with Impact and (sourceforge) xc3sprog.
>
> --
> Uwe Bonnes =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0b...@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-dar=
mstadt.de
>
> Institut fuer Kernphysik =A0Schlossgartenstrasse 9 =A064289 Darmstadt
> --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------




Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search