[SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: steve weir <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Richard Jungert <r_jungert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:09:05 -0700
Richard, in my experience, linear regulators can be effective for
cleaning up PLL power on the PCB but they are usually completely
unnecessary. The bandwidth of even a good linear regulator by itself is
still in the audio range. If your PLL is insensitive to audio frequency
disturbances by virtue of a good loop, then what you are really buying
with the linear regulator is a very expensive series L/R that works with
the bypass caps on the PLL side to filter noise from the dirty digital
realm. With a little care you can usually save a lot of: board
real-estate, money, and complication by designing a passive filter to do
the same or better job.
Steve.
Richard Jungert wrote:
> Mike.
>
> I would recommend putting the PLL circuit near the edge of the board and also
> cut a power and ground plane split 270 degrees around or under the PLL
> circuit. Cut them both the same shape. If you put it near the center of the
> board there is a very high probablility for much more jitter.
>
> Also, in my experience its not a great idea to power the PLL with a common
> voltage. Put a small low power voltage regulator in to just power the PLL
> circuit and this will isolate him from the rest of the noisy digital logic.
> Power and ground plane noise will sneak right into the PLL and modulate your
> clock.
>
> I have found on three other designs that this approach is very effective in
> cutting down phase noise on the clock circuits.
>
> Another trick that cuts noise on ground/power planes is decoupling with caps
> out to the chassis ground. Decouple out to the chassis ground and watch the
> noise decrease. This is also a trick used to supress EMC problems.
>
> Richard Jungert
>
>
>
>
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
>> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:14:31 -0500
>> From: zabinski.patrick@xxxxxxxx
>> To: mrose@xxxxxxxxxxxx; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> In answer to your last question, I believe the lowest-inductance option
>> involves capacitors placed directly between the two power planes (and
>> not through the ground plane).
>>
>> That said, the scenario scares me.
>>
>> For many components that require multiple planes (e.g., FPGAs w/
>> SerDes), some of their supplies are very sensitive to noise. For
>> example, nearly all SerDes cores have an analog supply for phase-locked
>> loops (PLLs), and noise injected into them can severely degrade jitter
>> performance. Similarly, noise on the I/O supply of a parallel bus can
>> degrade SI of the output waveform. In many instances, the chip supplier
>> provides guidelines for isolating such voltages, often recommending
>> specific isolation circuits. Adding decoupling between the various
>> voltages will/can defeat the isolation circuits and inject noise from
>> one plane onto the next.
>>
>> Although adding decoupling between the power planes will help with
>> discontinuities of the signals traversing the split, you could be
>> inadvertently creating other problems. As such, I suggest you look
>> closely at the power planes that you're about to inject noise into and
>> ensure they are immune to outside influence.
>>
>> Good luck,
>> Pat Zabinski
>> Mayo Clinic
>>
>>
>>
>>> Some diff pairs on L4 will cross power plane splits (actual different
>>> power sources and loads) and I wanted to provide an effective AC path
>>> for any common-mode return currents. I was thinking about placing some
>>> nearby decoupling caps from plane-to-plane across the split. Do you
>>> think it would be better to decouple from plane-to-ground on
>>> both sides
>>> to steer the current through the L6 ground layer? L5 and L6
>>> are already
>>> coupled through the inter-plane capacitance (they're about
>>> 4mils apart).
>>> Which will provide a lower inductance path?
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live.
> http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
--
Steve Weir
Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
121 North River Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
California office
(866) 675-4630 Business
(707) 780-1951 Fax
Main office
(401) 284-1827 Business
(401) 284-1840 Fax
Oregon office
(503) 430-1065 Business
(503) 430-1285 Fax
http://www.teraspeed.com
This e-mail contains proprietary and confidential intellectual property of
Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teraspeed(R) is the registered service mark of Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
- Follow-Ups:
- [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Richard Jungert
- [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Richard Jungert
- References:
- [SI-LIST] Re: Question on PDN simulation with Linear Technology spice
- From: istvan Novak
- [SI-LIST] plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Michael Rose
- [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Zabinski, Patrick
- [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Richard Jungert
Other related posts:
- » [SI-LIST] plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- » [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Richard Jungert
- [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Richard Jungert
- [SI-LIST] Re: Question on PDN simulation with Linear Technology spice
- From: istvan Novak
- [SI-LIST] plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Michael Rose
- [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Zabinski, Patrick
- [SI-LIST] Re: plane-to-plane decoupling
- From: Richard Jungert