RE: CRPAT / CJPAT Pattern Question
Everyone,
THere are multiple issues here, so let me try to go through it again. I
think we may be at a point where it is really an "implication " thing that
we can only try to inform about.
I would like to refer everyone to the presentation that was given in St.
Louis -
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/may01/dambrosia_2_0501.pdf
There are two aspects to the crosstalk analysis. The first part looked at
the noise values (both near and far-end)created in the HM-Zd connector.
During this analysis worst-case switching patterns, intended to maximize the
amount of crosstalk, were used. You can see, how the worst case switching
would be dependent on the connector pinout.
In the second part of the presentation, we ran a system simulation of the
XAUI channel. We used one pinout and either switched signals in phase or
out of phase with the signal under consideration. When adjacent signals are
switched in-phase, the overall performance of the system was better than
when no adjacent signals were switched or when they were switched out of
phase. In our simulation we assumed a bottom layer connection (i.e. traces
go through the via to the bottom layer). When assuming a top layer
connection, this affect is even more dramatic.
So it was my concern that crosstalk between the 4 lanes in a single channel
would result in artifically improved performance, which would improve
overall measured performance in a system environment where other crosstalk
sources are then be factored in.
Perhaps another suggestion is to use the same data pattern for each lane,
but delay each by a bit? We can leverage off of CRPAT and CJPAT, which were
intended to test jitter, and include potential crosstalk effects. I don't
think a PRBS pattern will stress the jitter performance, since this is what
CJPAT is intended to do, right?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Jenkins [mailto:jenkins@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:19 PM
Cc: stds-802-3-hssg-serialpmd@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: CRPAT / CJPAT Pattern Question
All,
I want to step back a second to point out what this conversation
is aimed at. Changing the pattern on three lanes to see the effect
at the receiver of the 4th lane is manipulating far-end crosstalk
(FEXT). FEXT is much smaller than near-end crosstalk (NEXT) because
the inductive and capacitive components subtract in FEXT but add
in NEXT. The NEXT for a receiver is created by the transmitters
in the same device as the receiver under test. If these transmitters
are sending CRPAT (or whatever) asynchronously, all possible
combinations will occur to close the receiver eye. Extraordinary
efforts to manipulate FEXT are probably for relatively rather small
returns in additional eye closure.
Regards,
Mike
pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> >From my experience testing crosstalk, single frequency stimulus signals
> would not be an effective way of testing crosstalk. Generally, the
received
> crosstalk from a disturber such as an adjacent signal path is the sum of
> many crosstalk components each coupling in with its own phase. Because of
> this, the crosstalk is not a smooth function with frequency. It bounces
> around staying under an envelope where the envelope is the amplitude you
get
> when all the components add in phase. Therefore, testing crosstalk at a
few
> discrete frequencies doesn't tell you much about where the envelope lies.
>
> Generally one wants to test crosstalk with a signal containing a broad
> spectrum of frequencies (e.g. CRPAT or even the normal idle signal since
we
> designed that to spread energy across the spectrum). One of the reasons
put
> forth in favor of having individual lane disables was that one could test
> crosstalk from one lane by disabling the other transmitters. Therefore, we
> don't need to do any special patterns for crosstalk measurement.
>
> Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Debie [mailto:mdebie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:47 AM
> To: 'DAmbrosia, John F'; Michael Debie; 'Serial PMD reflector (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: CRPAT / CJPAT Pattern Question
>
> John,
>
> Absolutely agree. I was just simplifying my description to one lane, but,
I
> assumed we would test each lane individually. As far as the pattern
> selection is concerned, the use of different patterns on each lane allows
us
> to see the contribution each of the other lanes has on cross talk noise.
> For example, suppose Lane 1 was driving a /5 clock like pattern
(1111100000)
> the FFT of the jitter on the Lane under test would show a spectral line at
> Fc/10 and the amplitude of the spectral line would be the pk-pk impact on
DJ
> that Lane 1 has on the Lane Under Test (LUT?). We could set up the other 3
> lanes with varying degrees of clock like patterns and quickly estimate
each
> lanes contribution to crosstalk on the LUT. We could perform this test on
> all 4 lanes to measure crosstalk contribution. It would also be
interesting
> to sweep through several clock like frequencies on the non tested lanes to
> quantify the impact of crosstalk as a function of instantaneous frequency.
> The test in which we apply the same pattern on all of the non tested lanes
> will tell us how the crosstalk components combine.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DAmbrosia, John F [mailto:john.dambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 9:11 AM
> To: 'Michael Debie'; 'Serial PMD reflector (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: CRPAT / CJPAT Pattern Question
>
> Michael,
> I think your second proposal makes more sense, but i think it would need
to
> go one step further. I think we should cycle which lane is the
"different"
> lane like this-
>
> Pat 1A Pat 1B Pat 1C Pat 1D
> Lane A + - - -
> Lane B - + - -
> Lane C - - + -
> Lane D - - - +
>
> Where the "+" lane would be the pattern, and the "-" would be the
> compliment. Thus, all channels get examined. If only 1 lane is tested,
> then the test is specific to the implemenation, where if all lanes in a
> channel get examined, then the performance of the channel is fully
examined
> rather than 1/4 of it.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Debie [mailto:mdebie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:41 PM
> To: DAmbrosia, John F
> Subject: RE: CRPAT / CJPAT Pattern Question
>
> John,
>
> A good diagnostic for cross talk would be to place different frequency
clock
> like patterns on all of the lanes. This could tell us the amplitude of
> cross talk per other lane and where it comes from. Also, if we run the
same
> patterns on three lanes and one lane different, we could see how the other
> three lanes combine to effect cross talk on the lane under test.
>
> Regards,
> m
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DAmbrosia, John F [mailto:john.dambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 4:21 PM
> To: Serial PMD reflector (E-mail)
> Subject: CRPAT / CJPAT Pattern Question
>
> Everyone,
> The 10GEA XAUI Interoperability Group met this week, and were discussing
the
> use of the CRPAT / CJPAT patterns for its testing. A general observation
> was that the same data pattern appear on all 4 lanes synchronously, which
> means crosstalk is not really being testing, which was probably being
> accounted for by connector crosstalk budget of 4%. Tyco presented data
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/ae/public/may01/dambrosia_2_0501.pdf
> that showed that crosstalk, which resulted from signals switching in-phase
> (i.e. high to low or low to high), could actually improve the overall
> response of the system. Thus, the resultant eye is improved and would be
> best case, and not even nominal (all adjacent channels quiet).
>
> Obviously, there are a lot of system variables that come into account when
> considering crosstalk, but it would seem that we could improve the
harshness
> of these patterns by not making all 4 channels have the same data
patterns.
>
> John D'Ambrosia
> Manager, Semiconductor Relations
> Tyco Electronics Corporation
>
> Tel. 717.986.5692
> Mobile 717.979.9679
>
> email - john.dambrosia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Jenkins Phone: 408.433.7901 _____
LSI Logic Corp, ms/G715 Fax: 408.433.7495 LSI|LOGIC| (R)
1525 McCarthy Blvd. mailto:Jenkins@xxxxxxxx | |
Milpitas, CA 95035 http://www.lsilogic.com |_____|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~