Re: SPI unterminated
From: Dave Boland (NODARNSPAMdboland9_at_stny.rr.com)
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: Winfield Hill: "Re: Cpacitance or Dielectric Measuring"
- Previous message: martin griffith: "Re: did something wrong with opamps?"
- In reply to: Mac: "Re: SPI unterminated"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:26:54 GMT
Mac,
Thank you for a wonderful response! I really appreciate the
insight. To answer your question, this is just a card
stack, like PC-104, and there are no cables. The card stack
will go into a metal box or have a metal cover and into a
rack mountable chassis (Euro card size).
Dave,
Mac wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:47:35 +0000, Dave Boland wrote:
>
>
>>I saw some postings about cards that have an SPI interface,
>>which made me think about a few things relative to a project
>>I'm doing. In this case, the plan is to run the SPI signal
>>lines and three chip selects to some header pins. Up to
>>three daughter cards can be stacked on the processor card,
>>and some or all may have SPI devices.
>>
>>My concerns are for unterminated SPI lines and radiated EMI.
>> Initial calculations look like reflections from an
>>umterminated line shouldn't be a problem because a 12.5 MHz
>>signal has a wave length of about 79 feet, which is much
>>longer than trace lengths for the SPI bus. This ignores the
>>effects of the rise time of the waveform though.
>
>
> I agree. I'm not a real EMI/EMC expert or veteran, but I picked up a
> little from some EMI engineers I used to work with at a big company that
> did its own certifications.
>
> If possible, I would put a series resistor at the clock driver (there is
> only one clock driver, right?), and a small shunt cap at every clock load
> (if you have control of that). Probably you will be able to just use a
> zero ohm jumper for the resistor and leave the caps unpopulated, but if a
> scan reveals problems, you'll be able to tweak the edge rate of the clock.
>
> The data lines aren't as critical, but depending on the topology, you
> could put series resistors near the data driver chips, too.
>
>
>>I haven't attempted to deal with EMI at this stage of
>>development, but it is always a concern.
>
>
> Actually, you should incorporate EMI from fairly early in the design
> phase. It affects pinouts, and chassis design and all kinds of things.
>
>
>>This is especially
>>true when a clock is passed from card to card and there will
>>be a pin radiating the clock (top card on the stack).
>>
>>Has anyone done a design similar to this and got it through
>>UL/CSA/IEC? If so, I would appreciate any helpful advice.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Dave
>
>
> It sounds as though you are not using any cable, but just stacked boards
> and board-to-board connectors. That's an assumption built-in to the
> following comments.
>
> Make sure the connector pinout provides good referencing for the clock
> signal. You may want to put ground pins adjacent to the clock pin to
> prevent cross-talk, and to provide good referencing. In the connector
> pinout, you can use power pins as ground references, too, provided that
> you have good decoupling of power to ground on both boards near the
> connector.
>
> Are the cards going to be inside of a metal box? A properly designed metal
> enclosure is or can be a big part of the EMC solution. For example, my
> first real design job was a memory mezzanine card which could be
> stacked up to two high for a single-board computer. It had multiple single
> ended 100 MHz clock lines which never shut off. When stacked one-high,
> there was an unterminated 100 MHz clock pin. But the SBC goes inside a
> chassis, and it passed EMI/EMC without any drama.
>
> I think you will be able to get your board through testing (or at least I
> don't think the SPI will stop you).
>
> But if you would rather be safe than sorry, or if the signals are going
> over cables, you could always switch to LVDS signalling, and put a
> common-mode choke on each diff-pair right where it passes off-board.
>
> If you use LVDS, you won't need to be quite as careful about referencing,
> so you can get by with fewer ground and power pins. This will
> partially offset the fact that you need two pins for every signal.
>
> HTH,
> Mac
>
- Next message: Winfield Hill: "Re: Cpacitance or Dielectric Measuring"
- Previous message: martin griffith: "Re: did something wrong with opamps?"
- In reply to: Mac: "Re: SPI unterminated"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|