[SI-LIST] Re: Majic Fbaud/1667 for CDR bandwidth
- From: "Chris Cheng" <Chris.Cheng@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "Vinu Arumugham" <vinu@xxxxxxxxx>, "steve weir" <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:44:29 -0700
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:
>>> //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:
>>> //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 technical documents are available at:
http://www.si-list.net
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
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:
//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:
//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:
