[SI-LIST] Re: Majic Fbaud/1667 for CDR bandwidth

But that is not what I said! I don't think it is easy to spot this 
problem by looking at the symbol response. A phase delay vs. freq. plot 
would be better.
Thanks,
Vinu

Chris Cheng wrote:
> If you believe you have an ISI resonance pattern that will go down to 1667 
> post cursor, you've got a problem bigger than just your PLL loop bandwidth.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Vinu Arumugham
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:21 PM
> To: steve weir
> Cc: Steve Waldstein; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Majic Fbaud/1667 for CDR bandwidth
>
>
>
> Steve,
> Regarding, "generally in a CDR scheme we want to track at as high a rate
> as
> we can.", there is at least one situation where tracking at a high rate
> can degrade performance.
> When an interconnect has a resonance that causes pattern dependent prop.
> delay variations, a clock like pattern can drag the sampling point away
> from the middle of the eye. When the data pattern changes back to random,
> one can encounter errors. With fast tracking one would need shorter
> clock-like sequences to   trigger this failure. With a scrambled data
> stream and a CDR that only reacts to long clock-like sequences, the
> probability of such errors can be reduced below the BER of interest.
>
> Thanks,
> Vinu
>
>
> steve weir wrote:
>   
>> Steve, generally in a CDR scheme we want to track at as high a rate as
>> we can.  We can dump the results into an elastic store and then use a
>> second PLL with a lower rate to smooth out the bumps for reading out the
>> elastic store and/or forwarding.
>>
>> I don't know why XAUI has such a tall ratio.  Either there is some break
>> in the 8b/10b pattern possible, or it seems to be about 50 times taller
>> than it needs to.
>>
>> Steve.
>> Steve Waldstein wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your answer but I'm still a little perplexed. In a PLL the
>>>       
> loop
>   
>>> bandwidth typically wants to be about a factor of 10 lower than the
>>> transition density in the reference clock to the PDF. But pushing the
>>> bandwidth lower will allow a noiser (more jitter) reference clock at
>>>       
> the
>   
>>> expense of seeing increased VCO jitter. The opposite it true where you
>>>       
> use a
>   
>>> higher loop bandwidth to clean up the VCO but you suffer from clock
>>>       
> noise
>   
>>> passing through the loop bandwidth that causes output jitter.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there is a similar analogy for the CDR. A lower loop bandwidth
>>> should produce a cleaner recovered clock but makes the loop less agile
>>>       
> to
>   
>>> data changes. A higher loop bandwidth makes the loop more agile but
>>>       
> produces
>   
>>> more jitter on the output.
>>>
>>> Lets use an example for discussion. XAUI has Fbaud = 3.125 Gb/s and
>>>       
> 8b/10b
>   
>>> (or 10Q) encoded. Yet its corner frequency is set at 3.215/1667 = 1.87
>>>       
> MHz.
>   
>>> Is this because XAUI want to recover a clock and recreate it to some
>>>       
> kind of
>   
>>> PPM accuracy similar its input spec of +/- 100 PPM? I know SONET had
>>> repeaters in it where the clock recreation was important but on most
>>>       
> serial
>   
>>> links that's not the case. So since you said Fbaud/30 was typically
>>> sufficient to recover the day why burden the receiver with such a
>>>       
> narrow
>   
>>> loop bandwidth?
>>>
>>> Is it really related to the fact that at +/- 100 PPM one skip is
>>>       
> inserted
>   
>>> every 5000 symbols so the 1667 provides margin to this by a factor of
>>>       
> 3?
>   
>>> I've also seen calculation that predict the jitter of a sinusoidal
>>> modulation of the carrier that relate to the equivalent PPM. It the
>>>       
> corner
>   
>>> really set to handle this type of issue? And not ability to recover the
>>> data?
>>>
>>> I know these are a lot of questions but your answer doesn't help
>>>       
> understand
>   
>>> why these standards have chosen such a low loop bandwitch.
>>>
>>> Steve W.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>       
> [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>   
>>> Behalf Of steve weir
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 10:38 PM
>>> To: Steve Waldstein
>>> Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Majic Fbaud/1667 for CDR bandwidth
>>>
>>> Steve the loop B/W has to do with:
>>>
>>> The available repetitive data rate.
>>> Reasonable phase / gain margin for the loop filter.
>>>
>>> Each of the various data transmission standards are different in the
>>>       
> way
>   
>>> that they can mess up a CDR, with the net result that many standards
>>> need very tall ratios between Fbaud and Fcorner.  Basically, you can
>>> easily achieve very stable operation by setting Fcorner = Frepeat / 5.
>>> With some care you can set it to Frepeat / 3, where Frepeat is the
>>> guaranteed lowest repetitive full 1-0 cycle.  For a pure 8B/10Q coded
>>> link, Fcorner can be as high as Fbaud / 30 and work well.
>>>
>>> As Chris Cheng has bemoaned, TIE and jitter in general both get worse
>>> with taller ratios as the VCO drifts ( or is disturbed by things like
>>> PDN noise ) over more bit intervals without the benefit of corrective
>>> feedback.
>>>
>>> Steve.
>>>
>>> Steve Waldstein wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I know many serial specifications place the corner frequency of a CDR
>>>>         
> at
>   
>>>> Fbaud/1667. I also know that the FC-MJSQ discusses how this was
>>>>         
> shifted
>   
>>>>         
>>> from
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> the Fbaud/2500 established for SONET. What I can't find is a good
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> discussion
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> on how to set CDR loop bandwidth for new serial specification. It
>>>>         
> appears
>   
>>>> there's some relation the desired frequency accuracy or ppm but
>>>>         
> haven't
>   
>>>> found a good derivation.  Can anyone provide a good reference relating
>>>>         
> to
>   
>>>> choosing loop bandwidth based on desired output jitter or what ever
>>>>         
> else
>   
>>>> helps set this corner frequency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Steve Waldstein
>>>>
>>>> E-mail: swldstn@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: (207) 749-6260
>>>>
>>>> Home:  (207) 885-0594
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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:
>>>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>>>
>>>> For help:
>>>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> List technical documents are available at:
>>>>                 http://www.si-list.net
>>>>
>>>> List archives are viewable at:
>>>>            http://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:
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
> For help:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>
>
> List technical documents are available at:
>                 http://www.si-list.net
>
> List archives are viewable at:
>               http://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
>
>
>
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and 
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, 
> copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments) by others is 
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact 
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of 
> this email and any attachments thereto.
>
>   



------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list

For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field


List technical documents are available at:
                http://www.si-list.net

List archives are viewable at:     
                http://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

Other related posts: