Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [BP] what constitutes the channel



Title:
Richard,
I won't get drawn into any more debate with you because that's what people perceive we are doing here.  I've presented what and why we have done what we are doing and you have presented your view of that.  I will continue to press for the cap on the receive side of tp4.  I will continue to work with developing the model for that to simulate as I have said I would do.  But I am limited only to geometry ... ie I can't get into the chip side.  I believe you have said you are in agreement with such a model moving forward from reading below.

I will talk with Mike and set up a meeting for Thursday so we can finalize the direction.

Now lets move forward with what the model needs to be from tp4 to the receiver ... you already started that.

I will present what I think the launch should be for the testing cards I have done ... trying to be similar to what John has done, as well.

Once we have an idea of what the model looks like from tp4 to the rx, I can help with cards and validation.
-joel


Mellitz, Richard wrote:

 

 


From: Joel Goergen [mailto:joel@force10networks.com]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 5:08 PM
To: Mellitz, Richard; stds-802-3-blade
Subject: Re: [BP] what constitutes the channel

 

in line ....

Mellitz, Richard wrote:

See comments below,

… Rich

 


From: owner-stds-802-3-blade@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-blade@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Joel Goergen
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 8:59 AM
To: STDS-802-3-BLADE@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [BP] what constitutes the channel

 

Richard,
I read through your presentation and there are a few things to discuss.

I wasn't as clear as I should have been on the clean launch.  The data I was refereing to clearly shows a single ended launch ... so 8 to 9 ohms single ended.  I have not looked at the differential response, but would guess it should fall within the same 15% passing through a connector thru-hole, press-fit.

[Mellitz, Richard] The impedance issue complicates matters.  The launch will create an error. A clean launch is a launch whose error terms are acceptable to all. I.e the reference plane is essentially at pad of unit under test. I think I have shown that the results from a good launch and no launch can essentially be equivalent.  I endorse the concept of a clean launch because is special lab test feature and not limited to product restraints. We can spec chips to this.

(joel) I agree that clean launch can be specified.  The accuracy of it will depend on the geometry and the reference planes.



I'm pretty much shocked to hear that chip vendors don't have that much data on the BGA bad.  You will never get a clean launch through the BGA pad because we just can't carve out the ground or play with the geometry like you can on an fxp layout.  Lets not forget the necking required to get out of the package.

[Mellitz, Richard] But in the test board I can use laser drilled vias and Rogers. On a product we give out guideline for chips. However our legal spec is to the pins (or bpg pad) of the device.  Many of our designs don’t neck down to get out of the package. Most lines on server blades can be at most 6 mils wide. Figure it out 10-14 layer and 62 mils.  Oh, the SI effects of carving out grounds is over rated. I more of power delivery issue than SI.

(joel) We are specifying 'improved fr-4'.  We have already voted on that issue.  Please refer to the objectives document.  Rogers can be used, but is not an fr-4 type material.
(joel) We will disagree on the effects of geometry to reference plane.  I think the data speaks for itself
.[Mellitz, Richard]  But if you are careful you can mitigate the effects. There are a lot of blade designs that swizzle lines through a connector field without any measurable change in from those that don’t. But then again there are those where measurable effect can be detected. It’s all in the 3-d design.



I can go along with providing a clean launch if all the chip people agree the packaging will be 4mm pitch BGA ... yeah ... 4!

[Mellitz, Richard] Clean launch is a test anarchism not production feature. So the point is moot. Production design is about tradeoffs. We will give guidelines on design but do  not mandate it if our customers are willing do due diligence on design analysis. The spec’s at the pins are necessary for this type of design tradeoff analysis.

(joel) I disagree.  I see this as a means to eliminate silicon responsibilty for the BGA pad or to eliminate the blocking cap altogether.  This is about trade-offs.  If the channel has to include the cap, the SDD21 will drop considerably so NRZ or PAM-4 may not work at all.  Not sure about any other coding scheme.  I don't want to see coding schems eliminated before they are discussed.

[Mellitz, Richard] I think we are basically in agreement. We still need to meet the SDD21 bar even whether the cap is in there or not. I believe the improved FR4 was referring to 40 inches. I’ll agree you need improved FR to make that happen. Say I want only do 20 inches on cardboard at 1/10th the cost. As long as we meet the SDD21 spec I think we are OK. The signaling decision is partly based on that, the SDD21 spec.  I’m not suggesting we change that, just the option to put anything between TP1 and TP4 that meet our needs and the spec.



I think John is right ... signaling should continue to build the model.  You will find it is not that bad.  If the channel has to absorb it, the schedule is effected, the fr-4 definition is effected, and the SDD21 will drop considerably.  Also, all the work in the channel in terms of cost so far will be scrap.



Some type of isolation has been used by IEEE since way back ... either a blocking cap or a magnetic.  This helps eliminate the common mode problem that occurs on large back planes, helps control Differential noise for EMI, and makes hot-swap much easier in terms of power supply control ... as you well know, most chip vendors now require multiple voltages, as well as power tracking or syncronization on the ramp up or down.

[Mellitz, Richard] I know the blocking story. There may sides to this and ways to manage CM, EMI, and power with out blocking caps. Again all these are design tradeoffs.

(joel) I think we can agree that neither of us will agree :):).  Lets move on.



I have no issue specifying some type of requirement on the blocking cap pad or type, but once you approach the chip package, I can't accept any kind of control like that.
[Mellitz, Richard] I don’t understand what you a getting at. It not cap type is electrical performance for the cap structure. How you get that is up to you.

This whole conversation scares me ... it makes me think that all this time every chip I have ever used doesn't meet the Sxx11/Sxx22 requirements that it should meet because know one understands the pad or can de-embed it for modeling and test.
[Mellitz, Richard]  I did agree to include the pad even though I think it should be the Si vendors call. So we are NOT de-embedding the cap.

The real channel goes from TP1 to TP4, with the cap on the rx side.  It always has been this way ... and for good reason.  We can not dictate to the channel that a cap has to be used should a system designer decide not to use it.  Placing it in the rx side allows the chip model to either embarce it or not.  There is nothing stoping the rx side from NOT using a cap.  But place it in between TP1 and TP4 and everyone will have to have it.  The material and channel models become very difficult.  We scratch all our work and all our design efforts.
[Mellitz, Richard]  Backplane are different than cables. The old way was driving form cabling paradigms not dense rack requirements.

I agree the “real channel” is between tp1 and tp4.  However, I believe that TP1 to Tx and TP4 to Rx should be a transparent. I.e. chips measurements with clean launches into TP1 and TP4 ideally look like the response into the pad. I don’t think that’s much different from what you are doing with the line cards. Not we need a what to determine how good TP1 to Tx and TP4 to Rx is.  If we can meet that in a real product then TP1 to TP4 must include the cap. This isn’t much different from the work you already doing. It provides low cost opportunity which I believe is required.

(joel) Including the cap in the channel is VERY different from what we are doing now.

[Mellitz, Richard] I thinks its more like a twist than VERY different. The cap belongs to the receiver. This I think we agree on. If we can’t meet a TP4 to Rx spec for our board design, we need to put the cap in the TP1-4 path. The TP1-4 path spec need to be meet. The problem this causes is if you want to make Rx eye measurement on a working system. Which at 5 GHz I think is meaningless. Want data to illustrate this?  Make the package lambda anti-resonant and you can close the eye at the pin an be wide open at the die. This can be shown with the simplest of simulations.


-joel

Mellitz, Richard wrote:


I think many Si vendor will take issue with 1 below. So let me see if I
can compromise on 2 to make it more palatable to all.
 
The track I was on was to define the AC cap and trace to pin of the Rx
as a "clean launch".  I think I demonstrated in the presentation that
with close attention to detail and real good "cherry picked" caps, this
can be pretty much done.
 
The rub is the "real" product channel. I propose that if the AC cap to
Rx is not clean then it is to be included into the channel. I think this
addresses everyone's issues.
 
Performance: This insures the highest possible performance is supported
by the standard. Superior product design will meet the 40" and more.
Lower cost designs need to make tradeoffs an probably won't reach as
far.
 
Measurement: This is enabled with the "clean AC launch". Now the issue
we need to address is what is "clean" ... SD11, SD21, etc. Maybe this is
another ad hoc sidebar but I think the measurement experts can plant a
good stake in the ground here.
 
Silicon Vendors: A clean launch pretty much gets you to the BGA pad as I
demonstrated in the presentation. Since this launch for testing is
relatively transparent, Si vendors should not have serious issues of
including it the Rx.
 
Board/system designers: Since we now have the "bar" set for performance
(channel spec), board/system designers can trade off connectors,
material, stack-up, etc. We now include the AC cap to Rx as part of the
channel tradeoffs if it's not as "clean" as we would like.
 
What do y'all think?
 
Rich Mellitz
Intel Corporation
803-216-2160
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-blade@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-blade@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Charles
Moore
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:04 PM
To: STDS-802-3-BLADE@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [BP] what constitutes the channel
 
To me it is clear that the "channel" goes all the way from the
Transmitter (the transistors and resistors) to the receiver (the load
and input buffer)  but:  it is also clear to me that the traces on the
chip, the chip pads, the connection from the chip to package and the
IC package are inaccessible to anyone but the IC supplier and as such
it makes no sense to include them in the measured channel.  They are
best considered part of the Transmitter or Receiver.
 
It is less clear to me that the connection between the package and the
PC board is part of the Rx or Tx but i am willing to go along with
this.
 
It also clear to me that not all system builders will be willing to
have IC suppliers dictate the design of their PC boards.  If the IC
supplier cannot define the thickness of boards, the number of layers,
the choice of layers used to connect to capacitors, the capacitors
to use, and the distance to the capacitors, it will be impossible for
the IC supplier to guarantee proper operation of the receiver.
 
I can see two ways out of the problem:
 
    1.  Have the system designer take responsibility for receiver
        performance by characterizing the path from capacitor to IC
        and requiring extra performance from the IC to cover losses
        in this path.  This solution has two difficulties:
 
        a.  It requires more performance from the ICs which are likely
            to be hard pressed to work without additional losses.
 
        b.  It will mean that each system design will require different
            IC designs, negating the advantages of having a standard.
 
    2.  Put a normative specification on the path from the capacitor to
        the IC.  This could be done in either of two ways.
 
        a.  Establish specifications on the path from the capacitor
            to IC.  This would involve having another ad-hoc committee
            or another project for the channel ad-hoc, another element
            to be specified, and another element to be added to
            simulation, with uncertainties due to unknown S11 and S22
            phase.
 
        b.  Lump the path from the capacitor to the IC into the
            "channel."  If there are nasty uncertainties having to do
            with vias to the capacitors etc., i think that it will be
            best to have them out in the open where we can deal with
            them in standards rather than hiding away as implementation
            details.
 
Note:  when i use the term:  "path from the Capacitor to IC" i intend
        it to include the capacitor, and any vias and pads necessary to
        connect to it but not the connection between the board and the
 
        IC.
 
        Low frequency losses due to AC coupling through the capacitors
        will be negligible in the measured range:  with 10nF capacitors
        the loss at 50MHz will be less than 5E-5 dB.
 
                         charles
--
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|       Charles Moore
|       Agilent Technologies
|       ASIC Products Division
|       charles_moore@agilent.com
|       (970) 288-4561
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|