Bill, since in your first response you spoke of sizing the capacitors large= =20 enough to swamp out Vref parasitics, I assumed that meant the capacitors=20 were located close to the receiver. Is this correct? If you locate=20 capacitors close to the receiver, how do you expect to get access to Vddq,= =20 and Vss of the transmitter? Do you propose to forward each separately as a= =20 large low Z tx line? It appears to me that we agree that coupling Vdd from the vicinity of the=20 receiver into Vref is a bad idea. Regards, Steve. At 01:08 PM 7/21/2005 -0400, Bill Wurst wrote: >Steve, > >I believe we are perhaps analyzing different physical structures. > >It seems that the question is whether a single filter capacitor from >Vref to ground (low pass network) is better than a two capacitor divider >(all pass network with an attenuation factor of 2). > >Let's start with the Micron DDR2 DIMM spec, which states, > "VREF is expected to equal VDDQ/2 of the transmitting device > and to track variations in the DC level of the same. > Peak-to-peak noise (non-common mode) on VREF may not exceed > =B11 percent of the DC value. Peak-to-peak AC noise on VREF may > not exceed =B12 percent of VREF (DC). This measurement is to be > taken at the nearest VREF bypass capacitor." >It also states, > "Data timing is now referenced to VREF, provided the > DQS slew rate is not less than 1.0V/ns. If the DQS slew rate > is less than 1.0V/ns, then data timing is now referenced to > VIH(AC) for a rising DQS and VIL(DC) for a falling DQS." > >Either configuration (low-pass or all-pass) can be made to work. A >resistor/capacitor (x2y) divider at the transmitting device (all-pass), >carried on a trace along with the data to the Vref pins of the receiving >device can give slightly better timing margins (up to 18ps at the worst >case of 2% pk-pk noise and 1V/ns slew rate) as follows. The 1% matching >of the x2y capacitor will keep non-common mode noise to less than 0.5% >of the dc value. As you previously stated, copious decoupling of >Vdd/Vss is required to keep pk-pk ac noise within 2%, and this amount of >decoupling is perhaps twice better than minimum good design practice. >In this way, both the data and Vref signals experience almost identical >Vdd/Vss noise all the way to the receiving device. The cancellation is >not perfect because a logic '1' only experiences Vdd noise while a logic >'0' only experiences Vss noise; each is attenuated by roughly a factor >of two due to both end terminations. Vref is the difference of Vdd and >Vss, divided by two, so the two approximately cancel if, and only if, >the noise on each rail is approximately equal and in-phase. If the >noise is unequal or out-of-phase, then the cancellation is partial, or >worse. But is it worse than the low-pass scheme, which takes an average >of all situations? I believe to answer this question will require >detailed simulation of memory, PCB, controller, and PDS. > >Unfortunately, there is application literature out there suggesting both >techniques. Which is better - perhaps we are trying to split hairs. > >Regards, > > -Bill > > > /************************************ > / billw@xxxxxxxxxxx / > / / > / Advanced Electronic Concepts, LLC / > / www.aec-lab.com / > ************************************ >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >steve weir wrote: > > At 09:01 PM 7/19/2005 -0400, Bill Wurst wrote: > > > >>Steve, > >> > >>I'll try to answer your comments/questions as I understand them (see > >>response below). > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >> -Bill > >> > >> > >>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >>steve weir wrote: > >> > >>>Bill, I really question where this assumption of average between Vdd= and > >>>Gnd comes from. The noise level on Vdd at the transmitter is not going= to > >>>be the same as the instantaneous noise at the receiver, so I don't buy= an > >>>argument based on the launch. That leaves us with the transmission > >>>channel. What percentage of what couples onto the transmitted signal > >>>depends on how the board is constructed. > >> > >>If the noise on Vdd and Vss at the transmitter propagate to the receiver > >>with the same velocity as the signal, then the noise at both the > >>transmitter and receiver will be the same but delayed by the flight > >>time. > > > > > > But I think it doesn't. If I have decent power bypass, then the radial > > disturbance on the planes encounters bypass for the transmitter first, > > where most is supposed to reflect, ( or else we don't have a very good > > bypass network ), and a little moves on outward, including onward= towards > > the receiver. When that wave hits the receiver's bypass network, it= again > > reflects, and if we have done a job well, very little is left to get to= =20 > the > > receiver. Conversely, the bypass network near the receiver localizes= the > > receiver's current noise. > > > > So, I conclude that by coupling Vdd into Vref I conclude we are getting: > > > > Vref_ac =3D vector sum ( Vnoise_vss_rec * K1 + Vnoise_vdd_rec * K2 + > > Vnoise_vss_tx * K3 + Vnoise_vdd_tx * K4 ) > > > > Now, I subtract that from my signal that is: > > > > Vsig_ac =3D vector sum ( Vterm * K5 +/- ( Vdd_tx - Vss_tx ) * K6 + > > Vcavity_ac * K7 ) > > > > Since K6 is ideally close to 1.0, K3 and K4 are ideally << 1, and K1= and > > K2 are close to 0.5, I see essentially no cancellation of the ( Vdd_tx + > > Vss_tx )/2, and injection of a lot of Vnoise_vdd_rec. > > > > Where have I gone wrong? > > > > > >>Granted, the construction of the board can and will impact this > >>assumption. The premise is to make the noise common to both sides of > >>the differential receiver, so that the receiver will reject the noise by > >>virtue of its CMRR. > > > > > > Agreed on premise, disagree mightily on implementation. > > > > > > > >>At launch, a logic '1' will replicate Vdd noise > >>which will be attenuated by terminations at both ends and also > >>influenced by any noise on the reference planes as it travels to the > >>receiver. Similarly, a logic '0' will replicate Vss noise. Trying to > >>make Vref equal to 50% of the difference between the two rails is > >>admittedly a compromise and, as you point out, other factors will reduce > >>the cancellation further. Yet I fail to see a better alternative. > > > > > > Please see above. > > > > > >>>A split filter is in essence a 2Y common mode filter turned inside > >>>out. Impedance mismatch gives rise to mode conversion.which throws off > >>>that 50% divider assumption for equal value ( data sheet ) > >>>capacitors. This is why we see 2Y RFI filters with a much bigger X > >>>capacitor shunting the two lines together- to swamp out the mode > >>>conversion. In the Vref application, the X capacitor is represented by > >> > >>the > >> > >>>bypass network from Vcc to Vss. That is really ugly, because it= basically > >>>says that we need to bypass the heck out of Vdd to get around mode > >>>conversion in the Vref bypass caps. > >> > >>I agree. This is essentially a 2Y CM filter, and Vdd must be bypassed > >>to the greatest extent practical. > >> > >>>The two capacitors in an X2Y match so well that even for analog > >>>instrumentation they do not need an X capacitor. I have an application > >>>note on this in ADI's instrumentation amplifier designer's guide, based= on > >>>real circuit measurements. An X2Y configured as: Terminal A =3D> Vdd, > >>>Terminal B =3D> Vss, Terminals G1, and G2 =3D> Vref matches to better= than > >>>1%. So, if one is bent on implementing the divider, X2Y capacitors do= the > >>>job in a way that is basically impossible using separate capacitors to > >> > >>each > >> > >>>rail. > >> > >>Again, I agree. I hedged in my response because I was unsure of the > >>matching that could be achieved with x2y capacitors. > >> > >>>If someone is really bent on this divider approach, then X2Y is= definitely > >>>the way to go. But given that people have been building with it, and > >>>apparently it has "worked" despite the mode conversion with regular > >> > >>caps, I > >> > >>>really question the validity of the approach in the first place. Do= you > >>>know what the physical basis for the rationale of the divider is= supposed > >>>to be? > >> > >>Hopefully, unless I've missed something, I've answered this in my > >>response to the first paragraph. Please let me know if I haven't. > >> > >>>Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>>Steve. > >>> > >>>At 12:48 PM 7/19/2005 -0400, Bill Wurst wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Chris, > >>>> > >>>>The answer to your question lies in understanding the function of the > >>>>Vref line. DDR, as well as DDR2, utilize differential receivers to > >>>>process single-ended inputs that have been generated by drivers which > >>>>swing in a balanced fashion around the mid-point of the VDD/GND= system. > >>>> To properly process these single-ended inputs, the inverting input of > >>>>each differential receiver is connected to Vref. The receivers will > >>>>work best when Vref equals exactly 0.5*(VDD-GND), including any noise > >>>>that is present on the VDD/GND system. The purpose of placing an= equal > >>>>amount of capacitance from Vref to VDD and from Vref to GND is to form > >>>>an ac divider that keeps Vref equal to 0.5*(VDD-GND) over all > >>>>frequencies. The capacitance should be large enough to swamp out any > >>>>parasitic capacitance that exists which could imbalance Vref. > >>>> > >>>>I'll have to hedge on the second question which was "whether an x2y > >>>>capacitor is better than two discrete capacitors" since I don't know > >>>>enough about x2y devices. Properly configured, an x2y capacitor could > >>>>perform better, but the bottom line comes down to the accuracy of the= ac > >>>>divider. > >>>> > >>>>Regards, > >>>> > >>>> -Bill > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> /************************************ > >>>> / billw@xxxxxxxxxxx / > >>>> / / > >>>> / Advanced Electronic Concepts, LLC / > >>>> / www.aec-lab.com / > >>>> ************************************ > >>>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >>>>Christopher R. Johnson wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I have seen references that have Vref bypass capacitors to both VDD= and > >>>>>GND. Other references have capacitors only to GND. Is it really > >>>>>necessary to have "balanced" capacitors on the Vref lines? Why? If= the > >>>>>"balanced" design is desirable, would an X2Y capacitor be a good= choice, > >>>>>since it is "2 capacitors in one"? > >>>>> > >>>>>Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>>Chris Johnson > >>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------ >------------------------------------------------------------------ >To unsubscribe from si-list: >si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field > >or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: >//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list > >For help: >si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field > >List FAQ wiki page is located at: > http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ > >List technical documents are available at: > http://www.si-list.org > >List archives are viewable at: > //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list >or at our remote archives: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages >Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: > http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from si-list: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field List FAQ wiki page is located at: http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ List technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.org List archives are viewable at: //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list or at our remote archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu