I'd like to place these additional CPLDs on a different PCB. This has the advantage that I can simply extend the device when I need. On smaller harnesses, a single 114 test-point PCB will suffice. On larger ones, I can cascade.
There are multiple levels of modularization which you can aim for. Where you want to stop depends on your specific use case. At the most basic level, the hardware must be designed such that you can select the number of modules in use after the design stage. The difficulty of changing the number of modules, space available, desired software complexity (and available space for software, especially on a CPLD) and the system cost will be key factors in your decision.
Hardware
The simplest and cheapest way to do this is to build one PCB, (You don't need multiple PCBs for modular design!) and put footprints for your desired maximum number of CPLDs on the PCB. If you need more IO, you can then solder down another CPLD. Obviously, this isn't something you'd want to do very often.
At the next stage, you'd want to build daughtercards so that you can more easily add and remove modules. You asked:
But what would be the best way to actually connect the PCBs together?
This depends on your system architecture and number of modules. If you know you'll never want more than, say, 3 modules at any one time, just put three connectors on the main board. These can be edge connectors, or stackable connectors, or whatever you like that doesn't require wires. If the number of sub-modules is too large to fit connectors for each on one PCB, then you should consider stacking (if your bus can handle the fanout of your maximum number of modules) or daisy-chaining (if you need to buffer the signal or vertical space is limited) the modules.
Plenty of connectors are designed for this purpose; check the "Board-to-Board" section of your favorite distributor or manufacturer, and many are designed for extremely low crosstalk and high frequency - 500kHz is nothing, unless you're using PTH 0.1" breakaway headers and have fast-changing signals (even then, you're probably OK). Check the mating strength of your connectors just to be sure, but if you only have a few pins, the footprint of your interconnection doesn't carry the stresses well, or the system will be subject to vibration, you'll need standoffs. It's often wise to design the interface in such a way that different modules can be designed to interface with the motherboard in the future. Pins are cheap, give yourself a couple spares just in case!
Software
If your number of modules supports it, you can simply add a slave select line for each module. This isn't really a software solution, but I wanted to mention it.
If you don't mind programming every CPLD differently, you could build the system such that the microcontroller sees it as one giant shift register (which you've suggested). If you added or removed a module, that module's address space would simply be wasted, and extra time would be used transmitting to addresses which don't exist. Each module would need to 'know' its address space, though, which would make programming the complete system a struggle.
A more versatile solution is to use software addressing to access each sub-module. In a 'programming mode' (perhaps a pushbutton on the module, or simply only connecting one at a time), you could assign the CPLD an address. By assigning each CPLD a different address, you could add or remove modules at will, and only have to adjust the activity of the microcontroller (which I presume to be easier to adjust than the CPLD).
My suggestion for this project
If a 324-pin device will solve all your foreseeable use cases, then the single-PCB method should work fine. The multiple-slave-select method would allow you to program all the CPLDs simultaneously with a single programmer. Sorry, but this project as described doesn't seem like a candidate for daughtercards.
A network analyzer is ideal to test your first two circuits. The network analyzer applies a swept-frequency RF stimulus to one port of your circuit and measures the response at the same or a different port. A scalar network analyzer only measures the response magnitude and a vector network analyzer measures both magnitude and phase.
The key to obtaining accurate measurements from a network analyzer is calibration. Essentially this means testing known standard devices to determine the performance of the network analyzer, then using this knowledge to correct the measurements you do later on your device under test (DUT). More and more complex types of network analyzer allow testing more standard devices to obtain more and more accurate final measurements. Your network analyzer will come with detailed instructions on how to do the different calibrations that it supports.
So for a butterworth filter, you calibrate your network analyzer, then connect your DUT, measure the response, and check whether it matches the ideal response of a butterworth filter. If you also have specs on return loss, you could check those at the same time.
For a power amplifier, you would measure the response and see if the gain is what is required.
If you want to test your PA for harmonic distortion you will rather have a synthesizer and a spectrum analyzer. You apply an input at different frequencies and power levels using the synthesizer, and use the spectrum analyzer to measure the power in the output fundamental and harmonics.
For an RF detector, you would apply a stimulus using a synthesizer and measure the output using a multimeter.
For the comparator, you will probably need to set up something more complex -- your set up will probably involve an osilloscope. What you test will depend on what are your critical specs and how your final system will work.
Best Answer