I'm considering using a chip which outputs 8-bit data on a 27 MHz clock. The data will go from the chip to a FPGA, a distance of a few cm max. Do I need to be concerned about timing differences between traces on a PCB, and if so, how can I mitigate these? I've often seen motherboards with traces in small coil shapes, presumably to act as little delay lines.
Electronic – Timing differences with a 27 MHz data clock
pcbtiming
Related Solutions
Since you mentioned that it will be low-speed then you most likely should not bother about impedance. The question is what exactly speed you are planning to go for?
My experience shows that you should think about impedance if the memory speed over 200MHz. If it's less than this number, there shouldn't be any problem, unless you have unusual PCB setup (6 layers, for example). But if you have, let's say, 4 layer PCB with two dedicated power planes, traces up to 3 inches can be even left without any termination at all. Just align the traces and you're done.
Anyway, if something went wrong, you always have the possibility to talk with memory on lower speeds.
I don't have experience with Quartus, so treat this as general advice.
When working on paths between clock domains, timing tools expand the clocks to the least common multiple of their periods and select the closest pair of edges.
For paths from a 36 MHz clock (27.777 ns) to a 100 MHz clock (10 ns), if I did my quick calculations correctly, the closest pair of rising edges is 138.888 ns on the source clock and 140 ns on the destination clock. That's effectively a 900 MHz constraint for those paths! Depending on rounding (or for clocks with no relationship), it could come out worse than that.
There are at least three ways to write constraints for this structure. I am going to call the clocks fast_clk
and slow_clk
as I think that's clearer for illustration.
Option 1: disable timing with set_false_path
The easiest solution is to use set_false_path
to disable timing between the clocks:
set_false_path -from [get_clocks fast_clk] -to [get_clocks slow_clk]
set_false_path -from [get_clocks slow_clk] -to [get_clocks fast_clk]
This is not strictly correct, since there are timing requirements for the synchronizer to work correctly. If the physical implementation delays the data too much relative to the control signal, then the synchronizer will not work. However, since there isn't any logic on the path, it's unlikely that the timing constraint will be violated. set_false_path
is commonly used for this kind of structure, even in ASICs, where the effort vs. risk tradeoff for low-probability failures is more cautious than for FPGAs.
Option 2: relax the constraint with set_multicycle_path
You can allow additional time for certain paths with set_multicycle_path
. It is more common to use multicycle paths with closely related clocks (e.g. interacting 1X and 2X clocks), but it will work here if the tool supports it sufficiently.
set_multicycle_path 2 -from [get_clocks slow_clk] -to [get_clocks fast_clk] -end -setup
set_multicycle_path 1 -from [get_clocks slow_clk] -to [get_clocks fast_clk] -end -hold
The default edge relationship for setup is single cycle, i.e. set_multicycle_path 1
. These commands allow one more cycle of the endpoint clock (-end
) for setup paths. The -hold
adjustment with a number one less than the setup constraint is almost always needed when setting multi cycle paths, for more see below.
To constrain paths in the other direction similarly (relaxing the constraint by one period of the faster clock), change -end
to -start
:
set_multicycle_path 2 -from [get_clocks fast_clk] -to [get_clocks slow_clk] -start -setup
set_multicycle_path 1 -from [get_clocks fast_clk] -to [get_clocks slow_clk] -start -hold
Option 3: specify requirement directly with set_max_delay
This is similar to the effect of set_multicycle_path
but saves having to think through the edge relationships and the effect on hold constraints.
set_max_delay 10 -from [get_clocks fast_clk] -to [get_clocks slow_clk]
set_max_delay 10 -from [get_clocks slow_clk] -to [get_clocks fast_clk]
You may want to pair this with set_min_delay
for hold checks, or leave the default hold check in place. You may also be able to do set_false_path -hold
to disable hold checks, if your tool supports it.
Gory details of edge selection for multi-cycle paths
To understand the hold adjustment that gets paired with each setup adjustment, consider this simple example with a 3:2 relationship. Each digit represents a rising clock edge:
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
The default setup check uses edges 2 and 6. The default hold check uses edges 1 and 4.
Applying a multi-cycle constraint of 2 with -end
adjusts the default setup and hold checks to use the next edge after what they were originally using, meaning the setup check now uses edges 2 and 7 and the hold check uses edges 1 and 5. For two clocks at the same frequency, this adjustment makes sense — each data launch corresponds with one data capture, and if the capture edge is moved out by one, the hold check should also move out by one. This kind of constraint might make sense for two branches of a single clock if one of the branches has a large delay. However, for the situation here, a hold check using edges 1 and 5 isn't desirable, since the only way to fix it is to add an entire clock cycle of delay on the path.
The multi-cycle hold constraint of 1 (for hold, the default is 0) adjusts the edge of the destination clock uesd for hold checks backwards by one edge. The combination of 2-cycle setup MCP and 1-cycle hold MCP constraints will result in a setup check using edges 2 and 7, and a hold check using edges 1 and 4.
Related Topic
- Electronic – Do I need to terminate extremely short traces (< 0.5 inches)
- Electronic – Parallel bus trace width and spacing
- Electronic – Need help with timing circuit for ballistic sensor
- Electronic – Synchronize Outputs of Separate FPGAs Within 1ns
- Electrical – Ethernet MII Timings MAC<->PHY
- Electronic – Unused area on layout
- Electronic – Large number of termination resistors and bi-directional signals
Best Answer
Leon is right, it probably doesn't matter for 27MHz signals on traces that are only a few cm long.
However, you can mitigate skew by making the trace lengths equal. If you've got the time to ask a question about it, and you have the board space, why wouldn't you want to do this? There's very little reason to build skew into your circuit. Make little 45o wiggles in the traces to make the distances the same and avoid building in reflections. This makes equalizing the trace length easy if your PCB program doesn't do it for you. Or, you can use rounded traces, but keeping the trace lengths equal gets more difficult.
Here's a PCB which uses LVDS. There's an NI board connected to this one through a 2m, 100-pin ribbon cable, and the other side of the LVDS transcievers connects to a parallel bus, so there are many sources of skew. Why not eliminate the PCB as a source of skew? Note: On this PCB, the paired traces are supposed to be coupled together. In a non-differential bus, running pairs like this will give you really bad cross-talk.