FPGA Central - World's 1st FPGA / CPLD Portal

FPGA Central

World's 1st FPGA Portal

 

Go Back   FPGA Groups > NewsGroup > FPGA

FPGA comp.arch.fpga newsgroup (usenet)

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-27-2006, 03:54 PM
Dolphin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Driving a 30 bit wide LVTTL bus at 160MHz

Hello,

In my future design I could win a lot of pins if I could drive a bus at
160MHz. Because of bank restrictions and because this bus is connected
to a CPLD, I will have to use LVTTL.
Has anybody tried driving a bus in LVTTL at 160MHz?

I would prefer to use LVDS but the CPLD doesn't allow that. Lattice has
LVDS CPLDs but only the large CPLDs support LVDS inputs.

I am afraid that this bus will have a lot of EMI/EMC problems. What do
you think of it, should series termination be adequate to limit the
EMI/EMC problems?

best regards,
Dolphin

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-27-2006, 04:11 PM
Symon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Driving a 30 bit wide LVTTL bus at 160MHz

Simulate it. Hyperlynx is your friend!
HTH, Syms.
"Dolphin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> Hello,
>
> In my future design I could win a lot of pins if I could drive a bus at
> 160MHz. Because of bank restrictions and because this bus is connected
> to a CPLD, I will have to use LVTTL.
> Has anybody tried driving a bus in LVTTL at 160MHz?
>
> I would prefer to use LVDS but the CPLD doesn't allow that. Lattice has
> LVDS CPLDs but only the large CPLDs support LVDS inputs.
>
> I am afraid that this bus will have a lot of EMI/EMC problems. What do
> you think of it, should series termination be adequate to limit the
> EMI/EMC problems?
>
> best regards,
> Dolphin
>



Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-27-2006, 05:43 PM
Ray Andraka
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Driving a 30 bit wide LVTTL bus at 160MHz

Dolphin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In my future design I could win a lot of pins if I could drive a bus at
> 160MHz. Because of bank restrictions and because this bus is connected
> to a CPLD, I will have to use LVTTL.
> Has anybody tried driving a bus in LVTTL at 160MHz?
>
> I would prefer to use LVDS but the CPLD doesn't allow that. Lattice has
> LVDS CPLDs but only the large CPLDs support LVDS inputs.
>
> I am afraid that this bus will have a lot of EMI/EMC problems. What do
> you think of it, should series termination be adequate to limit the
> EMI/EMC problems?
>
> best regards,
> Dolphin
>

It can be done with extreme care. Keep the lines short, you may need to
terminate them, and by all means do a SI simulation on it so that you
know it will work rather than blindly applying "fixes".
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-27-2006, 07:13 PM
John Adair
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Driving a 30 bit wide LVTTL bus at 160MHz

Also be careful of Simulaneously Switching Outputs guidelines. As Ray
says it can be done but if you use a crappy package like PQ208 or TQ144
you may have big problems with ground bounce that causes the interface
to fail. Most of the BGA packages do much better at this fast type of
driving from our experience.

Some CPLDs like the bigger Coolrunner-IIs can also support single ended
standards like SSTL, HSTL that are designed for high speed and may be a
an alternate solution for you. These standards have the advantage of
small signal swings too which is better for ground bounce and EMC.

John Adair
Enterpoint Ltd.

Ray Andraka wrote:
> Dolphin wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In my future design I could win a lot of pins if I could drive a bus at
> > 160MHz. Because of bank restrictions and because this bus is connected
> > to a CPLD, I will have to use LVTTL.
> > Has anybody tried driving a bus in LVTTL at 160MHz?
> >
> > I would prefer to use LVDS but the CPLD doesn't allow that. Lattice has
> > LVDS CPLDs but only the large CPLDs support LVDS inputs.
> >
> > I am afraid that this bus will have a lot of EMI/EMC problems. What do
> > you think of it, should series termination be adequate to limit the
> > EMI/EMC problems?
> >
> > best regards,
> > Dolphin
> >

> It can be done with extreme care. Keep the lines short, you may need to
> terminate them, and by all means do a SI simulation on it so that you
> know it will work rather than blindly applying "fixes".


Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2006, 11:48 AM
Aurelian Lazarut
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Driving a 30 bit wide LVTTL bus at 160MHz

Hi,
maybe this is a stupid question, but is there any chance to absorb the
cpld logic into the FPGA?
this will move your interface inside and make your life easier.
Aurash
Dolphin wrote:

>Hello,
>
>In my future design I could win a lot of pins if I could drive a bus at
>160MHz. Because of bank restrictions and because this bus is connected
>to a CPLD, I will have to use LVTTL.
>Has anybody tried driving a bus in LVTTL at 160MHz?
>
>I would prefer to use LVDS but the CPLD doesn't allow that. Lattice has
>LVDS CPLDs but only the large CPLDs support LVDS inputs.
>
>I am afraid that this bus will have a lot of EMI/EMC problems. What do
>you think of it, should series termination be adequate to limit the
>EMI/EMC problems?
>
>best regards,
>Dolphin
>
>
>



--
__
/ /\/\ Aurelian Lazarut
\ \ / System Verification Engineer
/ / \ Xilinx Ireland
\_\/\/

phone: 353 01 4032639
fax: 353 01 4640324


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2006, 08:54 PM
Jim Granville
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Driving a 30 bit wide LVTTL bus at 160MHz

Dolphin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In my future design I could win a lot of pins if I could drive a bus at
> 160MHz. Because of bank restrictions and because this bus is connected
> to a CPLD, I will have to use LVTTL.
> Has anybody tried driving a bus in LVTTL at 160MHz?
>
> I would prefer to use LVDS but the CPLD doesn't allow that. Lattice has
> LVDS CPLDs but only the large CPLDs support LVDS inputs.
>
> I am afraid that this bus will have a lot of EMI/EMC problems. What do
> you think of it, should series termination be adequate to limit the
> EMI/EMC problems?


You mentioned speed, but forgot distance ?
How far does this have to go - sounds like the CPLD is a (remote?) slave ?
You can get small LVDS-LVTTL transcievers, plus you can also use dual
data lines, to halve the clock rate. ( see winbond for dual-data SPI
memory, they spec to 150MHz )
-jg

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2006, 08:01 PM
Stef?
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Driving a 30 bit wide LVTTL bus at 160MHz


Add a series-resistor in the lines and/or
use the current-limiting feature of the I/O-ports (if available).
(too reduce the slopes of the signals)

Kind regards,
Stef?

"Dolphin" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> Hello,
>
> In my future design I could win a lot of pins if I could drive a bus at
> 160MHz. Because of bank restrictions and because this bus is connected
> to a CPLD, I will have to use LVTTL.
> Has anybody tried driving a bus in LVTTL at 160MHz?
>
> I would prefer to use LVDS but the CPLD doesn't allow that. Lattice has
> LVDS CPLDs but only the large CPLDs support LVDS inputs.
>
> I am afraid that this bus will have a lot of EMI/EMC problems. What do
> you think of it, should series termination be adequate to limit the
> EMI/EMC problems?
>
> best regards,
> Dolphin
>



Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
64-bit wide multiple port instances Jake Verilog 3 09-11-2007 11:06 PM
LVTTL, LVCMOS or 3.3V-PCI? kia rui FPGA 2 06-19-2006 03:40 PM
LVTTL or LVCMOS for PCI Signaling? kia rui FPGA 6 06-18-2006 08:16 PM
LVTTL Spec [email protected] FPGA 1 06-24-2005 02:25 PM
wide ROM bxbxb3 FPGA 2 05-17-2005 08:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright 2008 @ FPGA Central. All rights reserved