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.

Requred depth of FIFO used with LMH1983

Other Parts Discussed in Thread: LMH1983

Can you give me the hint when you design the depth of the FIFO
In a system bellow.


The system consist of two blocks. They are primal block and secondary block.
The primal block generates pixel clock, video data as well as FVH sync pulses in SD, HD and
3G formats.
The secondary block receives FVH pulse and generates pixel clock such as 27MHz, 74.25MHz
74.25/1.001 MHz, 148.5MHz or 148.5/1.001MHz using LMH1983.
The video data is transferred between them using a FIFO.
FIFO is initialize with NO_LOCK signal from LMH1983.
When NO_LOC=’1’, FIFO is reset and when NO_LOCK=’0’, FIFO is in operation mode.

The question is that, at least, how much depth of FIFO is necessary for robust operation.

I suspect that the amount to the peak jitter included in the H Sync generated in the primal block
is the dominant (or only) factor when you decide the depth of the FIFO required in this system.
Please advise me if it is correct?


Another concern is that when the NO_LOCK is changed from ‘1’ (NO_LOCK) to ‘0’ (LOCKED),
PLL1 may not be clocked completely.  Because the NO_LOCK may not indicate the exact lock
conditions of the PLL.
In average PLL is assumed to be locked, however, in microscopic instance there may be significant
phase error.
Please let me confirm that once NO_LOCk is de-asserted, the phase error between HSIN and output
clock never exceed certain value at nay instance.
Another word, you have not worry about the depth of the FIFO other than jitter included in the HSIN.

 

PS     Please also advice me on the PLL loop filter components values.

The: LMH1983 data sheet recommends  CP≈CS/20. In contrast evaluation board uses Cp=Cs/47.
Please let me know why Cs/47 was used as Cp instead of Cs/20.
Please also le m know the recommended range of Cs/Cp ratio.

  • The question on FIFO depth is very application dependent.   In most normal video systems, the primary block will be getting it's timing from another video signal, and the SMPTE standards for whichever video signal that is will dictate the jitter characteristics.   However, most of the standards only specify the timing down to the 10Hz level (at which typically 2 UI is permitted), and the LMH1983 can have loop bandwidths well below the 10Hz frequency - with 3Hz being typical.    If we were to assume that there is not much frequency wander in the system, the a 2 bit FIFO should be sufficient to generate a clean output with any in-spec input, but to accomodate for potential additional wander below 10Hz, I would probably make the FIFO larger to accomodate.

     

  • Regarding the question relating to NO_LOCK, the NO_LOCK output pin is quite conservative in that it determines lock by looking at how hard the VCXO control voltage is being driven.   If the reference has low frequency jitter or wander on it, then the VCXO control voltage will be driven to follow this variation, and the NO_LOCK circuit may not de-assert NO_LOCK (assert LOCK) despite the fact that the output is faithfully following the input reference.    You are correct in saying that once NO_LOCK is de-asserted, the phase error between Hin and the output clock will not exceed some value.  

     

  • Regarding loop filter component selection:

    On the evaluation board, we optimized the loop filter for an NTSC reference.  We wanted the loop bandwidth to fall well below the 10Hz lower corner for the SMPTE 259, 292 and 242 jitter specifications, and chose 3Hz, being about 3 octaves below this corner, which was somewhat conservative.   We set the damping factor to about 0.7, which set Rs to be 17.4k and Cs to be ~47uF.   Cp determines the placement of the second pole, which is intended to lower the response of the filter to the Hin frequency, which is about 15kHz for NTSC, so we had a lot of room between our 3Hz bandwidth and the 15kHz - by selecting an Rp which was smaller than the Rs/20 value, we moved the second pole further out, making the circuit more stable and still had plenty of room between the second pole and the anticipated Hin frequency.   If the loop bandwidth were to be increased, or the reference changed to a higher frequency, then this ratio would probably have to be rethought.

  • Mark-san,


    Thank you for your answers.
    Before I close this session, please allow me to ask one more question.
    Cp value and frequency of the second order pole.
    Is there any equation which expresses the relationship of them.

  • Mita-san

    The actual equations are quite complicated, but the first order approximation that we use is that the natural frequency of the loop (bandwidth if the damping factor is 0.707), is proportional to Rs, and the second pole is at or near a frequency of this natural frequency multiplied by the ratio Cs/Cp - the purpose of the second pole is to filter out the components that come at the frequency of the input to the frequency detector - which will be different depending on the format of the reference.

    Mark Sauerwald

     

  • Mark-san, Thank you for the answer. I got it.