X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1320692655 DOT 6963 DOT 20 DOT camel AT localhost> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:46:03 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] PCIe card? From: Russell Dill To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id pA7MrQ0J013457 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Ecob wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Russell Dill wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Stephen Ecob wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Russell Dill wrote: >>>>> One idea I had for a quick start was to lay out and edit a PCB with >>>>> the differential pairs replaced by fat single traces of thickness (2 * >>>>> differential trace copper thickness + differential trace internal >>>>> spacing).  A fairly simple bit of code could later convert these from >>>>> fat single traces to differential pairs. >>>> >>>> BTW, it isn't really necessary to route differential traces this way. >>>> Rather than route them with a very tightly regulated spacing, you can >>>> route them instead with a minimum spacing as single ended traces, >>>> which is much easier. Just be sure they have equal lengths impedances. >>> >>> That's how I presently use PCB to implement differential pairs.  It >>> works well enough for the ~ 1Gbps signals that I'm working with, but I >>> wouldn't try it for something like 5Gbps PCIE. >>> The main limitation is that the spacing between the traces changes >>> slightly for diagonal lines, changing the impedance. >> >> As long as you have them far enough apart, it doesn't matter if the >> spacing changes. >> >>> For high speeds I'd also want to eliminate sharp corners and use arcs >>> for every change in direction.  Creating pairs of arcs that maintain >>> even spacing would be tedious using PCB's present UI.  Creating single >>> thick arcs in the GUI and later having them transformed into correctly >>> spaced pairs of arcs would be bearable. >> >> I don't think that'd have an effect even at 5Gpbs. You'd probably even >> be ok with right angle corners, unless your margins are really really >> tight already. > > That sounds rather optimistic to me :-) > > See p12 of: > > http://www.pcisig.com/developers/main/training_materials/get_document?doc_id=6d37ec2f8543fc1f9d8ace6264d08b469f57e5f1 > > (tiny URL in case the above gets broken in transit:) I realise it says "no 90 bends", but they provide no numbers or references for their recommendation, and they already have several 90 bends in their design. Every via is 2 90 bends. Every pad is 2 90 bends, every pin is 2 90 bends. http://www.sigcon.com/Pubs/edn/bigbadbend.htm There are several good right angle bend threads on si-list, here's a good one http://www.freelists.org/post/si-list/PCB-Corners-Need-help-finding-research-paper