8/8/2020 An IEEE search of 'serdes crosstalk' within the IEEE trans. on EMC gave two results:
- B. Chen, S. Pan, J. Wang, S. Yong, M. Ouyang and J. Fan, "Differential Crosstalk Mitigation in the Pin Field Area of SerDes Channel With Trace Routing Guidance," in IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1385-1394, Aug. 2019
- This paper discusses the various ways that crosstalk is quantified, ICR, ICN and COM. They give a nice overview of ICR and ICN. I wonder how a signal's ICN changes after decomposition. This might be an interesting point of discuss. More likely, I will want to take the crosstalk to the time domain and do a COM like quantification of crosstalk or do the statistical crosstalk calculation.
- S. Yong, V. Khilkevich, X. Cai, C. Sui, B. Sen and J. Fan, "Comprehensive and Practical Way to Look at Far-End Crosstalk for Transmission Lines With Lossy Conductor and Dielectric," in IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 510-520, April 2020
- This paper is concerned with determining better equations for transmission line crosstalk. They have an interesting perspective in the introduction:
- "However, the classic formulas are based on the assumptions of the lossless transmission line and perfectly matched terminals, which limits their usage in a practical transmission line design. A recent study [18] presented that FEXT is not solely contributed by forward traveling crosstalk. If mismatched terminals are introduced, a combined effect due to backward traveling crosstalk and reflections at near-end and far-end mismatched terminals also contributes to FEXT. Such an effect may be negligible for coupled microstrips but is dominating for striplines, especially with a homogeneous dielectric medium. Hence, FEXT is neither independent of mismatched terminals nor equal to forward traveling crosstalk alone for practical transmission lines with impedance mismatched terminals.
Further, it was commonly believed that the forward traveling crosstalk is mainly attenuated by the lossy material. Thus, the FEXT calculated using the lossless material assumption should be a conservative estimation, which provides an upper bound crosstalk noise. But, according to our investigations, this is not necessarily true. An important phenomenon is observed that lossy conductor could increase FEXT under certain conditions. According to the simulation results shown in Fig. 1, FEXT on tightly coupled striplines increases from 0.0 to 12.0 mV after a lossy conductor is introduced." - The paper they reference above [18] is their own paper.
I next relaxed the search constraint on the EMC journal and found the following:
- S. Yuan, L. Wu, Z. Wang, X. Zheng, C. Zhang and Z. Wang, "A 70 mW 25 Gb/s Quarter-Rate SerDes Transmitter and Receiver Chipset With 40 dB of Equalization in 65 nm CMOS Technology," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 939-949, July 2016
- This transmitter includes far-end crosstalk canceller (XTC).
- "To mitigate the far-end crosstalk (FEXT) and the crosstalk-induced jitter (CIJ), several approaches using a crosstalk canceller XTC) have been adopted in the designs of TX [11], [12]. In this paper, a SST driver merged with the FFE and XTC is proposed, which an compensate for both the channel loss and FEXT with relatively low power."
- SST = Source series terminated
- A. Tajalli et al., "A 1.02-pJ/b 20.83-Gb/s/Wire USR Transceiver Using CNRZ-5 in 16-nm FinFET," in IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1108-1123, April 2020
- Kandu bus technology. Here they say that CNRZ signaling "provided very good resistance against common-mode and crosstalk noise sources"
These papers could be used to discuss the various circuit approaches to handling crosstalk.
