[SI-LIST] Re: Relevance of Common Mode Return Loss

Yes (sort of in the first order) there is a spec on the amount of common mode 
signal allowed for some serdes standards.  The spec is given as a return loss 
of x dB form some xfreq to some yfreq.  So by making the common mode return 
loss measurement with a reference impedance of 25ohms will give us the first 
order S21 = sqrt(1-S11^2).  Is this good enough?
By the way how would one measure the interconnect/package/on-chip circuitry to 
evaluate the conversion of the differential signal into common signal (SCD21)?  

-Jory



Guys-


If there is so much concern about the presence of the common signal on the
interconnect, and its rattling around, shouldn't there be a spec on the
amount of common signal allowed at the receiver?



Anyone have a feel for what a reasonable value is, before it starts to
affect the jitter, as Steve Weir pointed out?



Lynn Greene suggested that any common signal present could be converted back
to diff and screw up the diff signal. If the source of the comm. signal is
from asymmetries in the interconnect, then isn't this the first order
problem to fix?



Shouldn't there be a spec on the SCD21 performance of the interconnect to
evaluate the conversion of the differential signal into common signal? This
is the first order problem, the second order one being the conversion of
"rattling around" common signal back into differential signal, further
screwing up the diff signal.



Steve Weir suggests that a spec for the SCC11 and SCC21 of an interconnect
is related to the fact it is easy to do, not that it is the most reasonable
approach. It is sort of like the joke where the punch line is, "because the
light is better over here" (only if I am publicly encouraged will I provide
the rest of the joke)



I am still trying to understand the importance of the SCC11 and SCC21 spec,
as opposed to a spec on the magnitude of the common signal, or on SCD21 or
SCD11.



Does anyone have any insight on the discussions that went on at the
committee meetings for the specs?



Thanks



--eric







*******************************************************

Eric Bogatin

Signal Integrity Evangelist

Bogatin Enterprises

Setting the Standard for Signal Integrity Training

26235 W 110th Terr

Olathe, KS  66061

e: eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

v: 913-393-1305

cell: 913-424-4333

f: 913-393-0929

www.BeTheSignal.com



San Diego: EPSI, BBDP, July 28-31, 2008

San Jose, SICT, Aug 12-13

San Jose, EPSI, BBDP, Sept 29-Oct 2

***********************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of David Instone
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:16 AM
To: olaney@xxxxxxxx
Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: Relevance of Common Mode Return Loss



Orin,

As Lynne pointed out in her posting on this subject, part of  the common 

mode energy can get converted to differential.  Surely then, reflecting 

the common mode back to the Tx, even if the Tx is a good CM match, would 

give it twice the opportunity to interfere with the differential.  How 

much this matters of course depends on how imbalanced the differential 

lines are and how imbalanced the signal is. 

Centre tapping the differential terminating resistor, at the Rx, to 

ground only fully terminates the common mode if there is little coupling 

between the lines, if they are coupled then three resistors are 

required, 1 from each line to gnd to terminate the even mode and 1 

across the lines, which in parallel with the other two terminates the 

odd mode,  how necessary this is depends on how tightly coupled the 

lines are.    Currently SATA and PCIe implementations that I have seen 

have the Rx termination inside the chip which makes the 3 resistor 

termination difficult to achieve.  This makes a common and differential 

return loss specification at the Rx relevant as it enables the traces 

and cable to be designed to match the termination in both modes.





Regards

Dave Instone

+44 (0)1235 824963



OXFORD SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED

25 MILTON PARK

ABINGDON

OXFORDSHIRE

OX14 4SH

Registered in England no 2733820

Registered Address: As above 







olaney@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> Since we don't want them, common mode signals can be treated 

> differently than for differential mode.  Given that common mode is 

> undesirable, at the transmit end we often use a deliberate mismatch 

> (CMC) to reflect this signal back to the transmitter.  This energy can 

> be absorbed by the transmitter if there is an adequate common mode 

> backmatch, or it can be left to ring between the driver and choke if 

> that is considered harmless.  At the receiver, the intent of providing 

> a common mode termination is simply to prevent unwanted CM energy from 

> returning up the line, giving it an additional chance to radiate.  

> If the common mode signal is terminated before the differential signal 

> passes through a CMC to reach the DM termination at the receiver, then 

> the best of both worlds is achieved: the CM signal is both absorbed 

> and suppressed.  The receiver common mode range becomes much harder to 

> violate.  For coding with a zero at DC (accepts AC coupling), a center 

> tapped inductor is an easy way to provide the CM termination:

>  

> Orin Laney

>  

>  





------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Other related posts: