• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 21 subscribers
  • Views 579 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

Time Synchronization in Semiconductor Process

Eddie Tseng
Prodigy 40 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: DP83640, DP83630

Hi,

I need to find a way to synchronize all our devices in the production system with our master clock. We have an interferometer (can it serve as a grand master clock?) and the client devices (at least 9 computers), the time synchronization accuracy must be within 100ns. Can you provide solutions (software or hardware) or is there any resource we can find? Our OS is Linux (Obuntu 18.04). The communication method is through Ethernet.

I did some research, to reach 100ns accuracy, we need IEEE 1588 protocol. The thing I'm not sure is when I look at industrial network protocol, there are 4 protocols. Base on my understanding, EtherCAT might be the one suits our problem? So if we choose EtherCAT, then we can define which master clock is the best? 

Best,

Eddie

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 18425 points

    Hi Eddie,

    We have DP83630 and DP83640 which support hardware time-stamping as per IEEE1588. You can use that for synchronization. For clock synchronization over EtherCAT, you will need to rely on the EtherCAT stack that is used on the MAC side. From the PHY perspective, you will need to use a Ethernet PHY that is approved for EtherCAT applications. DP83826 and DP83822 from our portfolio are approved for EtherCAT applications.

    -Regards

    Aniruddha

  • 0 in reply to Aniruddha Khadye
    Prodigy 40 points

    Hi Anuruddha,

    So does it means that we can use DP83630 or DP83640 too reach 100ns time accuracy with standard Ethernet?

    Best,

    Eddie

  • 0 in reply to Eddie Tseng
    TI__Mastermind 18425 points

    Hi Eddie,

    If you are using hardware timestamping with DP83630 or DP83640, then the accuracy can be in 1ns range. If that is not required and you are planning to implement synchronization over EtherCat then the accuracy will depend on the MAC as well. In this situation you do not have to use DP83630 or DP83640; you can use DP83822 or DP83826 as well. They PHY will only be responsible for sending and receiving data packets with predictable latencies. The latency information is included in the PHY datasheet. If the EtherCAT MAC is capable of providing 100ns accuracy then you can get that performance by using any of the 4 PHYs listed above.

    -Regards

    Aniruddha

  • 0 in reply to Aniruddha Khadye
    Prodigy 40 points

    Hi,

    Thank you for the response. What if we use standard Ethernet? We can use DP83630 or DP93640 to achieve the accuracy we want, right (all devices will communicate through standard Ethernet)? However, the product you provide is a transceiver which is not really what we want. We want a product like a PCI card or something bigger so that we can implement it quickly.

    Best,

    Eddie

  • 0 in reply to Eddie Tseng
    TI__Mastermind 18425 points

    Hi Eddie,

    I think there might be some confusion. DP83630 and DP83640 are both Physical layer transceivers. Currently we do not support a PCI card in our portfolio. 

    Having said that, if you were to implement a EtherCAT based synchronization system using DP83630/DP83640 and a EtherCAT MAC of your choice, you should be able to achieve the performance that you need. Again, in this situation the MAC performance also needs to be taken into account. 

    -Regards

    Aniruddha

  • 0 in reply to Aniruddha Khadye
    Prodigy 40 points

    Thank you for the quick response. We are considering using standard Ethernet instead of using industrial Ethernet. I thought using industrial Ethernet will have better time synchronization accuracy, but it seems there's not much difference.

    Best,

    Eddie