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.
Tool/software:
Hi, I am developing a prototype that uses the RMII interface to implement the ETHERNET communication. This prototype consists of the RM46L852 (MAC) and the DP83640 (PHY). On the other hand, I am using the 100BASE-TX.
As you know, the design of this protocol involves complying with a list of rules that ensure correct behavior. So, here is a list of the ones I have been able to accomplish and the ones I have not been able to accomplish. I would like to ask some questions about this topic and get your opinion and possible solutions. The rules are as follows:
My schematic:
My PCI properties
Therefore, with these PCI properties I will get the following impedance values:
So, I have a number of questions about the rules I'm not following:
Can anyone help me with this question? I think I have made all the information I have used quite clear.
Hi Francisco,
Apologies for the delay in late response.
Actually, i am not expert in layout guidelines, i am just checking internal team who could help me with layout guidelines.
I will try to loop the PHY layout expert by tomorrow.
--
Thanks & regards,
Jagadish.
Hi Francisco,
Regarding your questions:
1) Implementing vias is a minimal risk regarding signal integrity, and so long as you have simulated the trace and are comfortable with the results, this should be fine.
2) It may be best practice to include atleast a placeholder for 50 ohm series termination on the TX lines. It all depends on the capabilities of the MAC. Having placeholder on all TX lines is best practice to ensure flexibility.
3) We have seen cutouts of MDI go to -2 layer instead of -1 to still accommodate for this. It is recommended to have some type of ground under diff traces for impedance control, but this allows for customers to still adhere to guidance. It all depends on if there are strict EMC requirements for this design; else -1 may still be tolerable.
4) This is rule of thumb, but I believe the biggest care about is ensuring impedance matching. Again, it depends on the requirements you have for your design performance-wise.
Sincerely,
Gerome
Hi Gerome.
Thanks for your reply
1) Ok.
2) Therefore, I will use resistor of 50 ohm for these signals: RMII_TXD_0, RMII_TXD_1 and RMII_TX_EN. When I perform the tests, if I detect any improvement I will change these resistors for others. Would you be okay with following this method?
3) I can't understand this answer correctly. Could you tell me the copper plane instead of its number (-1 and -2) by its name (F_CU, B_Cu, etc)? On the other hand, I will elaborate and provide more information on this for better clarification.
The MDI traces are located in most of their path in the F_Cu layer, except for the last part where they must be connected to the DP83640 (PHY), which is located in the B_CU layer. Therefore, it is necessary to use vias to achieve this.
A uniform GND plane is available in the In1.Cu layer below the F_Cu layer.
A uniform GND plane is available in the In4.CU layer above the B_Cu layer.
So I thought of trimming the ground plane (In1_Cu) which is located below the MDI lines of the F_Cu layer and creating a ground plane of the (In2_Cu) layer in that route. On the other hand, trimming the ground plane of the (In4_Cu) layer which is located below the MDI lines of the B_Cu layer and creating the ground plane of the (In3_Cu) layer intact in that route. ¿Do you consider this situation critical?
4) Ok, Since this is a prototype for testing, it would not be critical to follow this rule until after testing is complete.
5) On the other hand, I have a question about the PHY, in the datasheet is not appears clear that the CLK_OUT pin has an integrated 50-Ω signal termination unlike the TX_CLK and RX_CLK pins, I use the CLK_OUT pin as my clock signal for the RMII_REFCLK pin, so I need you to clarify this for me since if it doesn't have an internal terminating resistor I'll need to put an external resistor.
Best regards,
Francisco.
Hello Francisco,
2) This is acceptable.
3) -2 layer would be IN2.cu assuming routing is on F.cu.
5) It is unclear if CLKOUT pin has this. Unfortunately, support on this device is limited to datasheet only. However, it appears that RX_CLK does have this termination included and can be used for RMII master. You may either use this pin, or provide placeholder for CLK_OUT and evaluate as in Q2.
Sincerely,
Gerome
Hi Gerome,
Thanks for your reply.
3) I think that I have understood the idea. I have remove the GND plane from the In1_Cu layer that is located under the MDI traces. Therefore, there is no cooper in this region. On the other hand, the In2_Cu has a GND plane that is located under the MDI traces. Would be correct?
F_Cu:
In1_Cu:
In2_Cu:
This implies meeting the following rule:
If there is a continuous ground plane beneath the differential MDI signal, the insulation length between the top copper layer, where the differential signal is located, and the inner layer, where the ground plane is located, must be ≥ 2 W of the differential signal. Too short a length may introduce common mode noise.
6) I want to know if by performing this method I would still have a differential impedance of 98 Ω, that is, should I change the value of Dielectric thickness “H” to calculate my differential impedance?
5) I cannot use the RX_CLK pin because I would have to use vias for its routing. Therefore, I will use an external resistor. What would be the behavior that I should observe in the CLK_OUT signal to check if it has an internal resistance of 50 ohm or not? For this test I will use a 0 ohm resistor in this signal and thus be able to verify if it has an internal resistance or not. If you can provide me with a graph of the behavior that I should expect, I would appreciate it. On the other hand, do you have a co-worker from Texas Instrument or one of the designers of this device who can clarify this issue?
Hello,
3) Traditionally, the inner layer is also GND, but this looks sufficient. It is generally best practice that this rule is followed for better EMC requirements, but this may not be a hard requirement for functionality.
6) Impedance calculations would need to be redone to factor in higher dielectric thickness.
5) Unfortunately, these resources are not available. The behavior expected would be a proper waveform seen at the input of the MAC pin. Having impedance mismatch would cause SI which may be enough of an issue if not properly mitigated. Having the placeholder (especially placing close to driving pin) gives that flexibility to tune accordingly.
Sincerely,
Gerome
Hi Gerome,
3) and 6) Therefore, I can't follow this rule.
5) Could you provide me a guide of texas instrument that discusses this topic? The signals specified in the guide do not need to be MAC related, you could interpret this information using other signals.
Best regards,
Francisco
Hi Francisco,
5) We don't necessarily have a dedicated guide, rather that these are design principles that are followed. Some resources I found online:
https://resources.pcb.cadence.com/blog/series-resistor-and-rc-termination-for-digital-signals
Sincerely,
Gerome