Brian Davis wrote:

[ ... snip ...]
> >
>  Well, those mysterious "fours" seem to have reappeared across
> the board again for the S3E differential drivers in VQ/PQ packages,
> with the spiffy well-balanced current mode drivers once again
> inconsistently assigned the same limit as have the older voltage
> mode, psuedo-differential, CMOS-with-resistors BLVDS outputs.
>
>  Those mystery fours also do not show the expected improvement in the
> smaller VQ package as do both the single ended standards and the latest
> Spartan-3 SSO limits for their current mode differential drivers.

The current Spartan-3E data sheet does indeed show those mysterious
"fours".

We're in the process of updating the Spartan-3E numbers and I expect
the mysterious 4's to improve to 6's in the next data sheet release for
LVDS, RSDS, and miniLVDS I/O standards.  Effectively, this means that
you can practically use all available I/O on a bank for LVDS, RSDS, or
miniLVDS outputs (okay, you miss one or two pins on the PQ208).

The Spartan-3 SSO confusion that you mentioned happened due to the
methodology we used at the time.  Previously, the SSO numbers were
generated strictly from simulation models, which always suffered from
huge, conservative guardbands on new processes.  Spartan-3 was one of
the first commercially available 90 nm devices.  The Spartan-3 SSO
numbers started out very low and improved once we were able to back up
the numbers with real silicon.
---------------------------------
Steven K. Knapp
Applications Manager, Xilinx Inc.
General Products Division
Spartan-3/-3E FPGAs
http://www.xilinx.com/spartan3e
---------------------------------
The Spartan(tm)-3 Generation:  The World's Lowest-Cost FPGAs.

"Steve Knapp (Xilinx Spartan-3 Generation FPGAs)" <steve.knapp@xilinx.com> 
wrote in message 
news:1144366043.186825.39990@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> John_H wrote:
<snip>
>> Oops.

>> I just remembered - there are only 4 banks on the Spartan3E.  Yikes!
>> The pairs per bank are 1.4x-2x the Spartan3 values so it looks like they
>> may be legit.

>> I sure hope those SSOs get changed!!!

> Which package did you plan to use and how many LVDS output pairs are
> required?  The different SSO numbers on the quad-flat packages are
> purposely lower due to their merely average signal integrity.  The BGA
> packages have superior signal integrity.
>
> Here's how you would calculate the recommended limit using the data
> sheet values.
> http://www.xilinx.com/bvdocs/publications/ds312.pdf
>
> Let's assume that you're using the TQ144 package, which has the
> equivalent of 2 VCC/GND pairs per bank (Table 92, page 133).  Then, go
> to the LVDS_25 section in Table 93 (on page 134), indicating that you
> can have 4 LVDS  _output pairs_ (emphasis included) per power ground
> pair.  Multiply the values together to arrive at 8 LVDS _output pairs_
> on a bank in the TQ144 package.  Again, the SSOs are a recommendation,
> but let's keep it to 8 pairs, which equations to 16 I/O pins.  There
> are only ~23 I/O on a package edge in the TQ144.  The Input-only pins
> are not available as outputs.  Also, SSOs are only for outputs.  You
> can have as many LVDS inputs that will fit in an I/O bank.
<signature snip>

Thanks for the info, Steve.  The only time I've had real troubles in the 
past was getting a feel-good for the improperly specified number of PCI 
signals per bank for the PQFP.  The data sheet does a good job of presenting 
the SSO information (which isn't seen so clearly in competitors' 
literature).

For my current design I was looking at an LVDS translator on the front end 
implemented in a separate FPGA.  The VQ or TQ package would make sense for 
such a low pin count application - 4 pairs in, 11 pairs out - but the SSO 
limits would exclude a simple flow-through design.  In the VQ or TQ package 
I couldn't put all 11 balanced-current LVDS drivers on one bank.

The design will end up using Xilinx after all and a BGA package for the 
front end and the main functionality removes most of the limits.

PCI interfaces are something we've implemented a bunch in the past.  The SSO 
numbers for the Spartan3E in the wireframe packages spread the interface out 
over at least 3 banks if those SSOs are to be believed.  That's a bit more 
of a restriction than I'd expect but they are just wireframe packages.  I'm 
hoping we're at the point soon where the price for wireframes aren't as 
attractive when compared to the "better" packaging.

- John_H

Steve Knapp wrote:
>
> The BGA packages have superior signal integrity.
>
 Well, the existing VQ100's aren't all that horrible; and if you
can make this or the next generation available in a ground paddle QFP
or QFN, the VQ100 size packages might even be better than the CP132's.

 Toss in 2.5V-or-less I/O banks with better performance, and there'll
be chocolate cake all 'round.

>
> The different SSO numbers on the quad-flat packages are
> purposely lower due to their merely average signal integrity.
>
 Well, those mysterious "fours" seem to have reappeared across
the board again for the S3E differential drivers in VQ/PQ packages,
with the spiffy well-balanced current mode drivers once again
inconsistently assigned the same limit as have the older voltage
mode, psuedo-differential, CMOS-with-resistors BLVDS outputs.

 Those mystery fours also do not show the expected improvement in the
smaller VQ package as do both the single ended standards and the latest
Spartan-3 SSO limits for their current mode differential drivers.

 In Spartan-3, the datasheet differential SSO's underwent the
following series of gyrations:

  - DS099-3 (v1.1) July 11, 2003
     - no SSO lmits in datasheet


  - DS099-3 (v1.3) March 4, 2004
      - blank SSO table column for PQ/VQ packages

      - blank SSO for all differential standards, PQ/VQ/BGA

  - DS099-3 (v1.4) August 24, 2004
      - deleted SSO table column for VQ/PQ packages

      - all differential drivers, of any type, in BGA, have a listed
        SSO limit of 4

      - LVDS_25_DCI input SSO limit of 4 in BGA


  - DS099-3 (v1.5) December 17, 2004
      - reappearance of VQ/PQ packages, with mysterious 4's across
        the board for the balanced current mode drivers for VQ/PQ/BGA

      - VQ/PQ limit of 1 or 2 for BLVDS/PECL

      - LVDS_25_DCI input SSO limit of 4

  - DS099-3 (v1.6) August 19, 2005
      - has more reasonable numbers for some of the current mode
        drivers, with better numbers for the smallest package
        as would be expected

      - VQ/PQ limit of 1 or 2 for BLVDS/PECL

      - LVDS_25_DCI input SSO limits have vanished

  - DS099-3 (v2.0) April 3, 2006
      - and even as we speak, your latest S3 datasheet has again
        improved the current mode driver SSO limits for the ones
        formerly stuck at '4'

>
>Also, SSOs are only for outputs.  You can have as many LVDS inputs
>that will fit in an I/O bank.
>
 For S3, Austin Lesea has indicated [2] that the LVDS_25_DCI numbers
in the S3 datasheet SSO tables were there to handle the DCI terminator
current; however, those DCI "fours" were removed in later SSO tables.

 I'd avoid using many parallel DCI inputs in the same VQ/PQ bank [1,3]
without first having some measurements of the internal DCI startup
VCCO rail collapse.

 Thankfully, S3E now has those approximately 120 ohm DT terminations.

Brian


[1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.fpga/msg/1ddb0bd333382d06
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.fpga/msg/52a0a4a0dbe79ebe
[3] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.fpga/msg/428d53c767e64c9a

John_H wrote:
> Brian Davis wrote:
> >  - the strangely low SSO limit (4) for the current mode drivers has
> >    reappeared for some of the S3E family, after improving in the
> >    latest S3 family SSO tables
>
> I noticed the SSO numbers but they don't affect me this round.  The
> specs are "per power/ground pair" which is ample on the BGA packages (7
> effective pairs per bank?) but still allows 8 SSOs on the wireframe
> parts (2 pairs ber bank).  I interpreted that as LVDS pairs, so 16
> signal lines per bank.
>
> Oops.
>
> I just remembered - there are only 4 banks on the Spartan3E.  Yikes!
> The pairs per bank are 1.4x-2x the Spartan3 values so it looks like they
> may be legit.
>
> I sure hope those SSOs get changed!!!

Which package did you plan to use and how many LVDS output pairs are
required?  The different SSO numbers on the quad-flat packages are
purposely lower due to their merely average signal integrity.  The BGA
packages have superior signal integrity.

Here's how you would calculate the recommended limit using the data
sheet values.
http://www.xilinx.com/bvdocs/publications/ds312.pdf

Let's assume that you're using the TQ144 package, which has the
equivalent of 2 VCC/GND pairs per bank (Table 92, page 133).  Then, go
to the LVDS_25 section in Table 93 (on page 134), indicating that you
can have 4 LVDS  _output pairs_ (emphasis included) per power ground
pair.  Multiply the values together to arrive at 8 LVDS _output pairs_
on a bank in the TQ144 package.  Again, the SSOs are a recommendation,
but let's keep it to 8 pairs, which equations to 16 I/O pins.  There
are only ~23 I/O on a package edge in the TQ144.  The Input-only pins
are not available as outputs.  Also, SSOs are only for outputs.  You
can have as many LVDS inputs that will fit in an I/O bank.

---------------------------------
Steven K. Knapp
Applications Manager, Xilinx Inc.
General Products Division
Spartan-3/-3E FPGAs
http://www.xilinx.com/spartan3e
---------------------------------
The Spartan(tm)-3 Generation:  The World's Lowest-Cost FPGAs.

Jim Granville wrote:
> John_H wrote:
>> > I could use "a Bourns network" or the like.  I anticipate using 0603s
> > because they're small, available, routable.  Unless there's experience
> > that says these tiny discretes should, indeed, be a resistor network
> > instead.
> >
> > I could use the quad-smd's.  Is there a reason I should?  Shouldn't?
> >
> > I'm hoping more for tidbits of experience rather than good ideas.
>
> Mainly it's a packing density issue. IIRC the pitch on the
> Quads, matches that of common TQFP packages.
> They are also on the right part of the price curve, and
> slash the resistor placement bill by 3/4.

When I'm doing a very dense board design, I typically use 0402
resistors because they can be tucked almost anywhere at will.  IE, you
aren't contrained to finding place(s) to set down one or more quad
packs.  Said another way, on average, I think I get better placement on
densely routed boards using single 0402's.  If you lower the density
though, it probably makes sense to go to packs assuming your
manufacturing house can make the boards without solder shorts on the
packs.

Have fun,

    Marc

John_H wrote:
> Jim Granville wrote:
> 
>> John_H wrote:
>>
>>> Hello folks,
>>>
>>> I may be starting my first Altera design in a few years but I was 
>>> disappointed to find that the Cyclone-II LVDS drivers aren't true 
>>> differential drives: an external resistor network is needed to 
>>> produce proper LVDS levels like in the "old days."
>>>
>>> Does anyone here have experience with the LVDS drivers?  I imagine 
>>> I'll end up with 0603 resistors rather than a Bourns network, for 
>>> instance.  What have others used?  
>>
>>
>>
>> You could use the quad-smd's = 4 resistors in 1206 or 0805 ?
>>
>> -jg
> 
> 
> I could use "a Bourns network" or the like.  I anticipate using 0603s 
> because they're small, available, routable.  Unless there's experience 
> that says these tiny discretes should, indeed, be a resistor network 
> instead.
> 
> I could use the quad-smd's.  Is there a reason I should?  Shouldn't?
> 
> I'm hoping more for tidbits of experience rather than good ideas.

Mainly it's a packing density issue. IIRC the pitch on the
Quads, matches that of common TQFP packages.
They are also on the right part of the price curve, and
slash the resistor placement bill by 3/4.

-jg

Brian Davis wrote:
>  - the strangely low SSO limit (4) for the current mode drivers has
>    reappeared for some of the S3E family, after improving in the
>    latest S3 family SSO tables

I noticed the SSO numbers but they don't affect me this round.  The 
specs are "per power/ground pair" which is ample on the BGA packages (7 
effective pairs per bank?) but still allows 8 SSOs on the wireframe 
parts (2 pairs ber bank).  I interpreted that as LVDS pairs, so 16 
signal lines per bank.

Oops.

I just remembered - there are only 4 banks on the Spartan3E.  Yikes! 
The pairs per bank are 1.4x-2x the Spartan3 values so it looks like they 
may be legit.

I sure hope those SSOs get changed!!!
____

Larger Cyclone-IIs have 8 banks but they also have some strange 
single-ended / differential restrictions within a bank.  Odd stuff. 
Maybe not a problem, but odd.

The Lattice parts are looking *nice* but are a bit low on memory for 
what I want to prototype.  I was looking seriously at the new devices 
until I realized the breadth of the memory disparity.  I could use a 
larger part with more memory but then the costs go up.

Jim Granville wrote:
> John_H wrote:
> 
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> I may be starting my first Altera design in a few years but I was 
>> disappointed to find that the Cyclone-II LVDS drivers aren't true 
>> differential drives: an external resistor network is needed to produce 
>> proper LVDS levels like in the "old days."
>>
>> Does anyone here have experience with the LVDS drivers?  I imagine 
>> I'll end up with 0603 resistors rather than a Bourns network, for 
>> instance.  What have others used?  
> 
> 
> You could use the quad-smd's = 4 resistors in 1206 or 0805 ?
> 
> -jg

I could use "a Bourns network" or the like.  I anticipate using 0603s 
because they're small, available, routable.  Unless there's experience 
that says these tiny discretes should, indeed, be a resistor network 
instead.

I could use the quad-smd's.  Is there a reason I should?  Shouldn't?

I'm hoping more for tidbits of experience rather than good ideas.

Thanks for the thoughts.

John_H wrote:
> Hello folks,
> 
> I may be starting my first Altera design in a few years but I was 
> disappointed to find that the Cyclone-II LVDS drivers aren't true 
> differential drives: an external resistor network is needed to produce 
> proper LVDS levels like in the "old days."
> 
> Does anyone here have experience with the LVDS drivers?  I imagine I'll end 
> up with 0603 resistors rather than a Bourns network, for instance.  What 
> have others used?  

You could use the quad-smd's = 4 resistors in 1206 or 0805 ?

-jg