FEATURE TEST & MEASUREMENT
TEST CHALLENGES FOR PAM4 SIGNALS
To cope with the demands of more data volumes at quicker rates, David Maliniak, Technical Marketing Communication Specialist at Teledyne LeCroy investigates the benefits of PAM4. This includes doubling the number of bits in serial data transmissions by increasing the number of levels of pulse-amplitude modulation. However this does present some test challenges, but there is a solution
perfect world, these transitions do not cross the threshold at the same place as the others (green circle). Thus, the question is whether these transi- tions would affect clock recovery? Will they result in clock jitter? The answer is "not really." If we assume roughly
A
s our society's hunger for data grows - not only more data, but more data
delivered faster - older modulation schemes based on NRZ-type encoding grow increasingly inadequate. We need to get data from point A to point B as efficiently as possible, whether that means between chips on a PC board or from one end of a long-haul optical fibre to the other. A modulation scheme that's gaining favour in many quarters is PAM4. PAM4 encoding offers the advantage of doubling
the bit rate in a serial data channel, doing so by increasing the number of voltage levels from two to four. It's a fairly complex modulation scheme, so it should be no surprise that it presents some test and measurement challenges. Imagine, if you will, a plain- vanilla NRZ eye diagram, and an ideal one at that. It would have no jitter, just a finite rise and fall time. The first thing that often comes up in discussions
of PAM4 signals is: How does one recover a clock? In the case of an NRZ signal, the purpose of clock recovery is to pinpoint the crossover point, or the place at which the signal crosses the threshold (see the green circle at centre left of figure 4). With a PAM4 signal, it's a similar situation except
for the fact that there are four voltage levels instead of two. The two intermediary levels mean a lot more signal transitions: there's the one from the bottom level to the next one higher, and from that level to the third, and from the third to the top (blue traces c, b, and a, respectively, in the figure). The blue trace b crosses at the same place as the
black traces that cover the full amplitude range (at the green circle). Some transitions do not cross any threshold at all (blue traces in top and bottom thirds), but there are likely not as many of those as there are transitions that do cross thresholds. So considering these transitions, one may assume that traditional clock recovery would be adequate. But then there are the transitions from the bottom
level to the second level up, and from the top level to the second level down (yellow traces). Even in a
14 SEPTEMBER 2016 | ELECTRONICS / ELECTRONICS Figure 1:
PAM4 doubles the number of bits in serial data transmissions by increasing the number of levels of pulse-amplitude modu-lation, but does so at the cost of noise susceptibility
equal numbers of transitions to the left and right of the green circle, and many more transitions than either at the green circle, then the two yellow crossings to the left and right cancel each other out. Traditional clock recovery works fine. Speaking of jitter, the proximity of those yellow
crossings to the idealised crossing location at the green circle does raise questions. Referring to the small red arrows at the right side of the figure, if one is accustomed to analysing NRZ signals, those gaps in time do indeed look like jitter. How does one analyses jitter on a PAM4 signal?
Figure 2:
A high-level view of PAM4 uses cases
Figure 3: Test set up with a 100GHz real-time oscilloscope of Teledyne LeCroy with PAM4 analysis package
Figure 4:
The major test challenges posed by PAM4 signals
Figure 2 Figure 4 Figure 3
First, let's not lose sight of the ultimate purpose of analysing jitter at all, which is to determine our predicted bit-error ratio. We want to know where we need to sample the signal to minimise bit errors (ideally, at the red crosses at the centre of each of the three eyes). Thus, what we really care about is the eye width and the position of the sampler in the receiver. The number of trajectories that build up the
eye aren't the issue, but rather the eye width at a given bit-error ratio as opposed to an in-depth analysis of what's going on at the cross-ings. Another challenge in the PAM4 realm is that of
noise tolerance. Instead of having the full amplitude range, we have 33% of that amplitude to work with. Thus, noise analysis becomes much more important. Just as we want to understand the eye width at a given BER to know where best to situate the sampler horizontally, we also need to know where to place it vertically. Eye height at a given BER is another critical parameter.
THE FINAL CHALLENGE Lastly, somewhat new for PAM4 in contrast to NRZ is the notion of linearity. In NRZ, there are only the two amplitude levels to worry about while PAM4 gives us these two intermediary amplitude lev-els. Are the distances a, b, and c the same so that the levels are evenly spaced and we have maxi-mum openings for all three eyes? Does a = b = c? That's what is meant by "linearity" in the context of PAM4.
Teledyne LeCroy
www.teledynelecroy.com E:
contact.sa@
teledynelecroy.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
