Is there any book or material that explains how to define the stack-up layer, on which layer to route the hi-speed signal, Ref signal, etc ? saoer NXP steve weir wrote: > I like continuous references where I can get them cheap or for free. > Vss references everywhere in the PCB is usually by far the easiest way > to get close to that. But the IC mfg has to have done their part too. > Referencing Vss everywhere in a PCB creates continuous references IF and > ONLY IF the signals reference GND at the source and end-point as well. > This is an issue with many packages that use mix and match or partial > references. In those cases the PDN still operates in series with the > return path. What a Vss only referenced PCB will do in that case is > restrict injection to near ICs where we tend to have decoupling anyway. > > Steve. > Mangipudi, Prasad wrote: > >> Bill, >> My GROUND assertion works for ALL signals, not just when passing through >> connectors. >> >> Consider a situation signals passing from one IC to another IC on a board. >> If the ICs are referenced to different voltage planes V1 and V2, you have to >> work on making the return path cross from V1 to V2. If the signal passes to >> multiple ICs, which are referenced to different voltage planes, or the >> signals pass through referencing other voltage planes or ground, you have to >> work through the entire route and work this way on all signals, which is >> avoidable. In my stackup, this entire work is eliminated. >> >> My methodology is to keep things simple. There is no need to create a >> concern and then solve it. >> >> Regards, >> Prasad >> >> ________________________________ >> From: wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:55 PM >> To: Mangipudi, Prasad >> Cc: 'SI LIST'; 'si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'sunil bharadwaz' >> Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] Re: 12 Layer stack >> >> >> Prasad, >> >> I agree with the GROUND assertion if you are going through a connector but >> even then with a few well placed capacitors (assuming we're not in Terahertz >> freq range) can mitigate most of your concerns with the voltage plane. As >> long as there is a good path somehow, I think you're in good shape. On a >> design at a different company, we did 800-1200Mhz single ended with >> misreferencing caps at the connector boundaries with the signals referenced >> to power that didn't pass through the connector. >> >> I guess my main point is, rules of thumb should be applied carefully; not >> all rules apply everywhere. I'm sure Dr. Johnson or Dr. Bogatin or any other >> pro would agree with that statement, as most of here would as well. >> >> I've done it both ways Prasad and have had 100% success with >> power-signal-ground or ground-signal-ground referencing on hundreds of >> cards, assuming you design for the return paths. Given a choice, I would >> take 4 striplines instead of 2 strips and 2 dual strips. There's nothing >> wrong with your stack, I've done that myself as well. I guess it's just a >> personal preference. >> >> Regards, >> >> Bill >> >> William Csongradi >> Senior Electrical Engineer >> Rockwell Collins Heads Down Display Center >> 319-295-7884 >> >> Mailing Address >> Rockwell Collins >> 400 Collins Road NE >> MS 105-167 >> Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52498-0001 >> >> >> >> >> "Mangipudi, Prasad" <Prasad_Mangipudi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> 07/28/2008 04:29 PM >> >> To >> "'wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> cc >> 'SI LIST' <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" >> <si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'sunil bharadwaz' <sunil_bharadwaz@xxxxxxxxx> >> Subject >> RE: [SI-LIST] Re: 12 Layer stack >> >> >> >> >> >> Bill, >> >> The original question is a general one without details and the 133MHz speed >> is not very high. The suggested stackup keep things simple. Even both of >> the original two stackups can be made to work, with extra effort. >> >> By referencing all signals to continuous ground planes, there is no need to >> keep track of return signal path for any signal assuming all the ground >> planes are stitched together nicely. This is not true if the signals are >> referenced to power planes. >> >> Dual strip line crosstalk: I have advised increasing the distance between >> the signal layers and/or power planes to adjust for the board thickness. By >> following orthogonal routing on adjacent signal layers, crosstalk is >> minimized. You can also reduce the crosstalk by decreasing the dielectric >> thickness between signal layer and ground plane. The signals are coupled >> more strongly to the reference plane than to other signal layer. >> >> Power planes: The power planes may look adjacent, but they are more >> strongly coupled to the adjacent ground planes than to each other. Also, >> most of the current devices need multiple power inputs and by localization >> of power pours, the coupling between them can be made far less compared to >> the coupling to the ground. Those G/P pairs can be thin dielectric >> materials if required. >> >> I have used the suggested stackup on many different designs for PCIe, DDR2, >> SAS, SATAI/II, Gigabit Ethernet, FC and never had to worry about EMI/EMC, >> Noise and crosstalk. The stackup alone will not solve all issues, but is a >> starting point for good design. I do not see any limitation in the proposed >> stackup. The devices I have used needed multiple power supplies and the >> best place for decoupling caps had always been back of the BGA in my case. I >> could carve out multiple local power pours on the power planes and if >> required even on signal layers. >> >> -Prasad >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wjcsongr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:40 PM >> To: Mangipudi, Prasad >> Cc: 'SI LIST'; si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'sunil bharadwaz' >> Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] Re: 12 Layer stack >> >> >> All, >> >> Another interesting topic to get the list fired up with discussion. >> >> Prasad, please explain why you think referencing all signals to GND is a >> good thing? And why coupling power planes of different noise levels in the >> middle of this mess is a good thing? >> >> Our Intel friends can certainly point to the now famous paper about this GND >> referencing stuff. I believe we will discover that as always, rules of thumb >> must be applied with care and not willy nilly everywhere. >> >> I'm very interested in the comments on this one. >> >> I would probably vote to minimize dual stripline wiring to minimize xtalk. >> With the stack below, you'll still have 4 good easily controlled wiring >> layers, 2 on top and bottom for fan out. And you can stick a hunk of that >> buried capacitance stuff in the middle. 'P' in the stack is plane. I don't >> care, except in the middle, if it's power or GND. With any stack discussed >> so far, you really only get 4 good layers. >> >> S-G-S-P-S-G-P-S-G-S-G-S. >> >> If that dual strip doesn't bother you, go for A. >> >> Also, doesn't the final answer depend on how many power planes you will need >> in your design? If you're a 10W board, for example, maybe one power layer is >> sufficient. There's that Ohm's law thing again: - ) >> >> Regards, >> >> Bill >> >> William Csongradi >> Senior Electrical Engineer >> Rockwell Collins Heads Down Display Center >> 319-295-7884 >> >> Mailing Address >> Rockwell Collins >> 400 Collins Road NE >> MS 105-167 >> Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52498-0001 >> >> >> >> "Mangipudi, Prasad" <Prasad_Mangipudi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Sent by: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> 07/28/2008 03:19 PM >> >> To >> 'sunil bharadwaz' <sunil_bharadwaz@xxxxxxxxx>, 'SI LIST' >> <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> cc >> Subject >> [SI-LIST] Re: 12 Layer stack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sunil, >> >> Neither. I would use S/G/S/S/G/P/P/G/S/S/G/S to simplify the design. All >> signals reference to ground. Required board thickness is achieved by >> increasing the dielectric between power planes and/or signal planes. >> >> -Prasad >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On >> Behalf Of sunil bharadwaz >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:08 AM >> To: SI LIST >> Subject: [SI-LIST] 12 Layer stack >> >> >> Hi , >> >> >> >> I have following two stack up's >> >> >> >> Stack 'A' >> >> >> >> 1)Signal >> >> 2)PWR >> >> 3)GND >> >> 4)Signal >> >> 5)PWR >> >> 6)Signal >> >> 7)Signal >> >> 8)Gnd >> >> 9)Signal >> >> 10)PWR >> >> 11)GND >> >> 12)Signal >> >> >> >> Stack 'B' >> >> >> >> 1)Signal >> >> 2)GND >> >> 3)Signal >> >> 4)Signal >> >> 5)Ground >> >> 6)Power >> >> 7)Power >> >> 8)GND >> >> 9)Signal >> >> 10)Signal >> >> 11)PWR >> >> 12)Signal >> >> >> >> Intent is to use one of these stacks for an FPGA based high speed Design (Max >> 133 Mhz). >> >> Can i know which one is preferable. >> >> >> >> >> >> regards >> >> Sunil.B >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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