Friends -
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 01:03:03PM -0800, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> I took a whack at laying out a Xilinx Spartan3-FT256 in PCB.
> I posted my results so far at
> http://recycle.lbl.gov/~ldoolitt/ft256/
I just updated that page, based in part on the comments
posted here. Thanks to all who replied!
The page now also references Darrell Harmon's DSPCARD,
and contrasts the two board designs.
Greg Bengeult commented on my decoupling question:
> Xilinx has an app note on their web site (XAPP623) that addresses the
> decoupling issue for any chip, not a specific type or package. It's
> written for engineers and can be a long and dry read, but all of the
> important information is in there.
I have read that note ages ago, and re-read it just now. It is too
general to answer specific questions about the Spartan3. The closest
it comes is where it asserts
The FPGA package and the PDS inside it are very carefully sized
to meet the needs of a fully utilized die without being overly
conservative. The number of VCC and GND pins on a package for a
given device is determined based on the needs of a 100% utilized
FPGA.
That gives an inside peek into the mind-set of Xilinx package
designers. So this is _almost_ a guarantee that 1 (properly laid
out) cap per pin is enough.
> I welcome constructive criticism, especially in the
> context of (relatively) high speed design. My interest
> in this chip is for designs running at about 100 MHz.
Still, of course.
- Larry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature