A closer look at effective return loss

Adam Healey
Broadcom Inc.
January 2020 (r1)
Introduction
• Effective return loss (ERL) has been a topic of recent discussions and a
number of initial Task Force review comments
• This presentation takes a closer look at the underlying concepts of ERL
• It clarifies the role of ERL in the compliance methodology for backplane
PHYS and chip-to-chip interfaces
• The impact of test fixtures is also considered

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 2

Backplane (and chip-to-chip) reference model
TP0 TP5
Define channel requirements
Channel

TP0a TP5a

Define transmitter and

FFE Tx Fixture receiver requirements Fixture Rx CTLE DFE

Goal: Assembled link that meets performance objectives

FFE Tx Channel Rx CTLE DFE

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 3

 Transfer function of the assembled link
• The transfer function from the transmitter input to the receiver output is the following
(𝑡) (𝑟)
𝑠21 𝑠21 𝑠21 ∆𝑆 = 𝑠11 𝑠22 − 𝑠21 𝑠12
𝐻21 = (𝑟) (𝑡) (𝑟) (𝑡)
1 − 𝑠22 𝑠11 − 𝑠11 𝑠22 + 𝑠11 𝑠22 ∆𝑆 𝑠21 = 𝑠12

• Note that 1Τ 1 − 𝑥 ≅ 1 + 𝑥 + 𝑥 2 + ⋯ for 𝑥 < 1

(𝑡) (𝑟) (𝑟) (𝑡) (𝑟) (𝑡)

𝐻21 ≅ 𝑠21 𝑠21 𝑠21 1 + 𝑠22 𝑠11 + 𝑠11 𝑠22 + 𝑠21 𝑠21 𝑠11 𝑠22

Rx-Tx re-reflection
Tx re-reflection
Rx re-reflection
(𝑟) (𝑡)
• Constraints on 𝑠11 , 𝑠22 , 𝑠11 , and 𝑠22 , e.g., ERL, are imposed to limit the re-reflection terms

𝑠11 𝑠12
(𝑡) (𝑡) (𝑟) (𝑟)
𝑠21 𝑠22 𝑠21 𝑠22 𝑠11 𝑠21
FFE Tx Channel Rx CTLE DFE

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 4

 Link equalization
Assume finite rise time and bandwidth from the Tx and Rx analog front-ends
• Let the bandwidth-limiting filters be 𝐻𝑡 and 𝐻𝑟 respectively

The transmitter and receiver cooperate to equalize the channel

• The transmitter includes a feed-forward equalizer (FFE) with transfer function 𝐻𝑓𝑓𝑒
• The reference receiver includes a continuous time linear equalizer (CTLE) with transfer function 𝐻𝑐𝑡𝑓
• 𝐻𝑓𝑓𝑒 and 𝐻𝑐𝑡𝑓 may only partially equalize the link in anticipation of further processing by a decision
feedback equalizer (DFE)

Stimulate the channel with a pulse with height 𝑨𝒗 and width 𝑻𝒃 (unit interval)

𝑃 = 𝐴𝑣 𝑇𝑏 sinc 𝑓𝑇𝑏 𝐻𝑓𝑓𝑒 𝐻𝑡 𝐻21 𝐻𝑟 𝐻𝑐𝑡𝑓

(𝑡) (𝑟) (𝑟) (𝑡) (𝑟) (𝑡)
𝑃 ≅ 𝐴𝑣 𝑇𝑏 sinc 𝑓𝑇𝑏 𝐻𝑓𝑓𝑒 𝐻𝑡 𝑠21 𝑠21 𝑠21 𝐻𝑟 𝐻𝑐𝑡𝑓 1 + 𝑠22 𝑠11 + 𝑠11 𝑠22 + 𝑠21 𝑠21 𝑠11 𝑠22

𝐻21
𝐻𝑓𝑓𝑒 𝐻𝑡 𝐻𝑟 𝐻𝑐𝑡𝑓
FFE Tx Channel Rx CTLE DFE

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 5

 Example
0

-5
Thru Channel information
Rx re-refl.
-10
Tx re-refl.
• “Heck2” as defined in heck_3ck_01b_0719.pdf
-15 Rx-Tx re-refl. • Loss is approximately 15.2 dB
Combined terms
-20 • Effective return loss is approximately 13.6 dB
Assembled link
-25 for port 1, 12.7 dB for port 2
-30 • Case 1 package model (𝑧𝑝 = 12 mm for Tx, Rx)
Magnitude, dB

-35
• Linear equalization determined using COM
-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

-65

-70

-75

-80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, GHz

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 6

 Time-domain view
Combined terms Assembled link
120% Notes
100% • Convert frequency-domain results from the prior
Normalized amplitude

80% slide to the time domain

60% • 𝑡 = 0 corresponds to 𝑡𝑠 as determined by COM
40% • Results are normalized to pulse amplitude at 𝑡𝑠
20%

0% Observations
-20% • Math works! Combination of terms agrees with
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80
Thru Time, UI Tx
Rx re-refl. at 53.125
re-refl. GBd Rx-Tx re-refl.
the transfer function of the assembled link
5.0% • Only Rx and Tx re-reflection terms need to be
4.0% considered (except, perhaps, for very low-loss
3.0%
channels)
Normalized amplitude

2.0%
Re-reflections add to 𝒔𝟐𝟏 product
1.0% • Re-reflection terms constructively/destructively
(𝑡) (𝑟)
0.0% combine with 𝑠21 product (𝑠21 𝑠21 𝑠21 ) and each
-1.0%
other
-2.0%
-3.0%
Tx and Rx re-reflections cancel • The 𝑠21 product includes a significant portion of
-4.0% the “tail” information
-5.0%
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80
Time, UI at 53.125 GBd

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 7

 ERL and re-reflection interference
For the moment, ignore test fixture effects…

ERL calculation begins with calculation of the pulse time-domain reflectometry (PTDR) response
• Response of the filtered reflection coefficient to a pulse with height 1 and width 𝑇𝑏
(𝑟) (𝑟)
• 𝑝𝑡𝑑𝑟 = ℱ −1 𝑇𝑏 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐 𝑓𝑇𝑏 𝐻𝑡 𝑠11 𝐻𝑟 where ℱ −1 𝑥 is the inverse Fourier transform of 𝑥

Recall the Rx re-reflection interference term calculated earlier

(𝑟) (𝑡) (𝑟) (𝑟)
• 𝐻𝑟𝑟 = 𝐴𝑣 𝑇𝑏 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑐 𝑓𝑇𝑏 𝐻𝑓𝑓𝑒 𝐻𝑡 𝑠21 𝑠21 𝑠21 𝐻𝑟 𝐻𝑐𝑡𝑓 𝑠22 𝑠11
• It is clear that an impulse response can be derived that converts the PTDR to re-reflection interference
(𝑟) (𝑡) (𝑟)
• ℎ𝑟𝑟 = ℱ −1 𝐴𝑣 𝐻𝑓𝑓𝑒 𝑠21 𝑠21 𝑠21 𝐻𝑐𝑡𝑓 𝑠22 is a function of the channel output reflection coefficient

Instead, ERL approximates the re-reflection interference by…

• “Gating and weighting” the PTDR response to yield 𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑓
• Sampling 𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑓 at 𝑇𝑏 -spaced intervals (at the phase corresponding to the largest RMS value)
• Constructing the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the sampled terms (for i.i.d. PAM-L symbols)
• Finding the amplitude for which the area under the tail of the CDF equals the target detector error ratio

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 8

 ERL “gating and weighting”
“Gating”
• PTDR response for time less than round-trip test fixture delay 𝑇𝑓𝑥 has weight 0
• Removes a portion of text fixture effect

“Weighting”
• 𝐺𝑟𝑟 (re-reflection) is a function of the minimum effective return loss allowed for connected channel, Tx, or Rx
• 𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 is not a significant factor (its value is close to 1)
• Significant discontinuity at 𝑁𝑏𝑥 + 1 unit intervals from 𝑇𝑓𝑥 (related to the expected Rx equalization capability)

1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Weight

0.6
0.5
0.4 G_rr
0.3
0.2 G_loss
0.1 G_rr * G_loss
0.0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
t − T_fx, UI at 53.125 GBd

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 9

 Rx re-reflection example, part 1
Rx PTDR Rx PTDR, weighted
0.200
Pulse time-domain reflectometry (PTDR)
Normalized amplitude

0.150
0.100
0.050 • 𝑡 = 0 is the round-trip test fixture delay 𝑇𝑓𝑥
0.000
-0.050 • Weighted PTDR (a.k.a. 𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) is also shown
-0.100
-0.150
-0.200
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80
Time, UI at 53.125 GBd
Rx re-refl.
0.25%
Re-reflection impulse response
Impulse response

0.20%
0.15%
0.10% • Normalized to pulse amplitude at 𝑡𝑠
0.05%
0.00%
-0.05%
-0.10%
-0.15%
-0.20%
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80
Time,RxUIinterf.
at 53.125 GBd

2.00% Rx re-reflection interference

Normalized amplitude

1.50%
1.00% • Convolution of PTDR response (not weighted)
0.50% (𝑟)
0.00%
and re-reflection impulse response ℎ𝑟𝑟
-0.50%
-1.00%
• This is what the receiver would actually “see”
-1.50%
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80
Time, UI at 53.125 GBd

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 10

 Rx re-reflection example, part 2
Rx PTDR Rx PTDR, weighted
0.200 Observations
Normalized amplitude

0.150 𝑵𝒃𝒙 + 𝟏
0.100
0.050
• Weighting implies the PTDR response for time
0.000 [0, 𝑁𝑏𝑥 + 1) UI is not as impactful
-0.050
-0.100 Convolves with… • Weighting implies the impact gets progressively
-0.150
-0.200 smaller as 𝑡 approaches 0
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80
Time, UI at 53.125 GBd
Rx re-refl.
• But the receiver “sees” the convolution of the
0.25%
PTDR response and the re-reflection impulse
Impulse response

0.20%
0.15%
response
0.10%
0.05% • This “low impact” region of the PTDR response
0.00%
-0.05% can generate interference terms later in time
-0.10%
-0.15% • Some of these terms can be beyond the reach
-0.20%
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 of68the 72
assumed
76 80 DFE
Time,RxUIinterf.
at 53.125 GBd
To yield… • The interaction between the Rx (or Tx) and the
2.00%
channel is not fully described by the weighting
Normalized amplitude

1.50%
1.00% function (and the 𝜌𝑥 parameter)
0.50%
0.00%
-0.50%
-1.00%
-1.50%
-4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80
Time, UI at 53.125 GBd

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 11

 Re-reflection impact on channel operating margin (COM)
N_bx = 12 N_bx = 21 N_bx = 24
24.0 ERL
22.0
20.0 • Sweep package trace length
ERL, dB

18.0
~4 dB drop in ERL and calculate ERL
16.0
14.0 • Multiple values of 𝑁𝑏𝑥
12.0
10.0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Package trace length (z_p), mm
T2 H2 T1 M1 K1 K3 K5 H3
7.00 COM
6.00 • Computed using parameter
COM, dB

5.00 values from Table 163‒10

4.00
• Rx package trace length is
3.00
swept (𝑧𝑝 = 31 mm for Tx)
2.00
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
T2 H2 Package M1
T1 trace length
K1 (z_p), K3
mm K5 H3
1.60
Remove re-reflection
1.40 (𝑟) (𝑡)
1.20 • Force 𝑠11 , 𝑠22 , 𝑠11 , 𝑠22 to
DCOM, dB

1.00
0.80
zero
0.60
0.40 • Measure improvement in
0.20 COM (the equalizers are
0.00
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 re-optimized)
Package trace length (z_p), mm

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 12

 Re-reflection impact on COM, continued
N_bx = 12 N_bx = 21 N_bx = 24
24.0
For the channels considered…
22.0

20.0
There is no clear justification for sharp decrease in ERL
when Tx or Rx reflections are later than 𝑵𝒃𝒙 + 𝟏 UI

ERL, dB
18.0

• No corresponding increase in re-reflection interference (as 16.0

indicated by ΔCOM) 14.0

12.0

Some correlation observed between channel ERL and re- 10.0

reflection interference T2 H2 T1 M1 K1 K3 K5 H3

15 20 25 29 35 40 Rx pkg. length, mm
• May be some relationship between re-reflection impulse
1.6
response and channel PTDR response 1.4
• But channel ERL does not appear to be sensitive to 𝑁𝑏𝑥 1.2

1.0

ΔCOM, dB
0.8
K3
K5
0.6
H3
0.4 T2, H2, T1
M1
0.2

0.0 K1
-0.2
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0
Channel ERL, dB
IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 13
Things to consider for ERL, part 1
• ERL limits the additional re-reflection interference that the Rx needs to
tolerate
• It captures the difference between component behavior measured with
reference terminations and the expected behavior in an assembled link
• It ignores features that will not matter considering the capabilities of the
reference equalizer
• But is it correctly discriminating between what matters from does not?

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 14

Things to consider for ERL, part 2
• Application of an equalization “window” to an individual PTDR response
is not appropriate
• The PTDR response is not the interference “seen” by the Rx
• The 𝐺𝑟𝑟 term does not appear to reconcile this difference
• Also recall that the interference is a combination of at least three terms
• How to choose tap positions (for floating-tap equalizer)?
• How to verify the correction is within the tap coefficient (or total energy) limit?
• While it is understood that the problem is complex and approximations
can not be avoided…
• …the PTDR weighting (not gating) function should be revised/replaced
• Goal is to protect the Rx from interference while enabling implementation flexibility

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 15

 Backplane and chip-to-chip channel measurements
TP0 TP5

Channel

𝑠11 𝑠12
𝑠21 𝑠22

Direct measurement of channel s-parameters between TP0 and TP5

• No test fixture impact to consider

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 16

Transmitter measurements
TP0
Transmitter transfer function
(𝑡) (0𝑎)
• We want to know 𝑠21 but we can only measure 𝑠21 (via linear fit pulse)
• The measurement is impacted by the properties of the test fixture
(𝑡) (𝑓)
(0𝑎) 𝑠21 𝑠21
𝑠21 = (𝑡) (𝑓)
1 − 𝑠22 𝑠11
(0𝑎) (𝑡) (𝑓) (𝑡) (𝑓)
TP0a 𝑠21 ≅ 𝑠21 𝑠21 1 + 𝑠22 𝑠11

FFE Tx Fixture Transmitter effective return loss

(𝑡)
(𝑡) (𝑡) (𝑓) (𝑓) • We want to know 𝑠22 but we can only measure Γ0𝑎
𝑠21 𝑠22 𝑠11 𝑠12 Γ0𝑎
(𝑓) (𝑓) (𝑓) (𝑡) (𝑓)
𝑠21 𝑠22 (𝑓) 𝑠12 𝑠22 𝑠21
Γ0𝑎 = 𝑠22 + (𝑡) (𝑓)
1 − 𝑠22 𝑠11
(𝑓) (𝑡) (𝑓) (𝑓) (𝑡) (𝑓)
Γ0𝑎 ≅ 𝑠22 + 𝑠22 𝑠21 𝑠21 1 + 𝑠22 𝑠11

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 17

 Receiver measurements
TP5
Receiver transfer function
(𝑟)
• 𝑠21 is not measured or estimated (unclear how this might be done)
(𝑟)
• Impairments related to 𝑠21 must be tolerated by the receiver (this is
evaluated via the receiver interference tolerance test)

TP5a
Receiver effective return loss
(𝑟)
• We want to know 𝑠11 but we can only measure Γ5𝑎
Fixture Rx CTLE DFE
(𝑓) (𝑟) (𝑓) (𝑟) (𝑟)
(𝑓) 𝑠21 𝑠11 𝑠12 𝑠11
(𝑓) (𝑓)
𝑠12 𝑠11 𝑠21
Γ5𝑎 = 𝑠11 + (𝑓) (𝑟) Γ5𝑎
1 − 𝑠22 𝑠11 𝑠21
(𝑓) (𝑓)
𝑠22
(𝑓) (𝑟) (𝑓) (𝑓) (𝑓) (𝑟)
Γ5𝑎 ≅ 𝑠11 + 𝑠11 𝑠21 𝑠21 1 + 𝑠22 𝑠11

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 18

Things to consider for test fixtures, part 1
• If test fixtures can be built with very low insertion loss and high return loss,
they could be ignored
• If the loss is not low enough to be ignored, but it is consistent, the impact
can be considered when the compliance limits are set
• Pro-rating specifications for test fixture return loss deficiencies is trickier
Component What we would like to know… What we measure…
(𝑡) (𝑡) (𝑓) (𝑡) (𝑓)
𝑠21 𝑠21 𝑠21 1 + 𝑠22 𝑠11
Tx
(𝑡) (𝑓) (𝑡) (𝑓) (𝑓) (𝑡) (𝑓)
𝑠22 𝑠22 + 𝑠22 𝑠21 𝑠21 1 + 𝑠22 𝑠11

𝑠11 𝑠12 𝑠11 𝑠12

Channel
𝑠21 𝑠22 𝑠21 𝑠22

(𝑟) (𝑓) (𝑟) (𝑓) (𝑓) (𝑓) (𝑟)

𝑠11 𝑠11 + 𝑠11 𝑠21 𝑠21 1 + 𝑠22 𝑠11
Rx
(𝑟)
𝑠21 Interference tolerance
IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 19
Things to consider for test fixtures, part 2
• It is not yet clear whether low and/or consistent losses will be achievable
for this signaling rate
• Thinking ahead, whatever is defined should enable a break-out of 8 Tx and 8 Rx pairs
• Module compliance board (cable assembly test fixture) loss allocation has
increased almost 100% from 26.5625 to 53.125 GBd
• Doesn’t this imply that the transmitter/receiver test fixture loss allocation
should also be increased?

From IEEE Std 802.3cd-2018 From IEEE P802.3ck/D1.0

Figure 136A‒1 Figure 162A‒1

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 20

Things to consider for test fixtures, part 3
• “The effects of differences between the insertion loss of an actual test
fixture and the reference insertion loss are to be accounted for in the
measurements”
• Overly aggressive test fixture targets will make this the norm rather than
the exception
• If compensation becomes routine, the value of compensating to some
reference loss is questionable
• Note that a lower loss test fixture for 100 Gb/s/lane testing will require
loss to be embedded in test results for lower rates
• Tx/Rx test fixtures are not expected to be pluggable
• Should the fixture loss simply “be accounted for in the measurements”?

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 21

Summary and recommendations
• Link between ERL and re-reflection interference seen by the Rx seems
tenuous
• Application of an “equalization” exception window to PTDR response is
incorrect
• Recommend to not extend the window to reflect floating-tap capability at this time
• Seek better ways to convert PTDR response to [equalized] re-reflection interference
• Need to decide on test fixture methodology and requirements in order to
set specification limits
• Reference loss of test fixture should be readily achievable
• If not, recommend that test fixture insertion loss be “accounted for” in measurements
• In either case, it is important to have good test fixture return loss

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 22

Reference
• Moore and Healey, “A Method for Evaluating Channels”, IEEE 100 Gb/s Backplane and
Copper Cable Study Group, March 2011.

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 23

Back-up
Channel information
IL, dB at
Label Reference
26.6 GHz
T2 12.2 DPO_IL_12dB from tracy_3ck_02_0119_orthoBP.zip
H2 15.2 Cable_BKP_16dB_0p575m_more_isi from heck_3ck_01a_1118_cable_BKP_16dB.zip
T1 15.7 Std_BP_12inch_Meg7 from tracy_3ck_03_0119_tradBP.zip
M1 26.3 CaBP_BGAVia_Opt2_28dB from mellitz_3ck_adhoc_02_081518_cabledbackplane.zip
K1 27.6 OAch4 from kareti_3ck_01a_1118_orthoUpdated.zip
K3 28.4 CAch3_b2 from kareti_3ck_01_1118_cabledBP.zip
K5 28.9 Bch2_b7p5_7 from kareti_3ck_01_1118_backplane.zip
H5 29 Cable_BKP_28dB_0p575 from heck_3ck_01a_1118_cable_BKP_28dB.zip

IEEE P802.3ck Task Force, January 2020 (r1) 25