I'm currently busy routing a high speed design containing MIPI signals @ 2,5Gbit / lane to a connector on an 8 layer board. As MIPI also contains a clock pair, it is advisable to match the length between pairs as best as possible.

I've come pretty far so far with matching <0,05mm, but I'm wondering what is the best option to extend the length of a trace, see below picture:

Differential pair length matching between pairs

Some information: Blue = layer 1 Green = layer 3 Purple = layer 6

Layer 2 and 7 are ground layers

Option 1 is extending the traces on the inner layer and running them back on top to the connector. To me, this seems like an excellent option, as it gives me maximum spacing towards other traces. However, I'm wondering how much of an influence the traces running back towards the connector exactly on top of the layer 3 traces has. It is a differential pair, and there is a ground/reference layer in between, so I would think this would allow only minimal crosstalk or other effects.

Option 2 is the traditional serpentine tracing. This would be my least preferred option, but I don't have much choice because I can't extend the traces behind the connector.

However, if option 2 is preferred for whatever reason, I could change the option 1 by retracting the traces back towards the connector as much as possible, and add serpentine tracing on layer 3.

So my question, which of these 2 options would give best signal integrity and/or EMI compatibility?

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ At the 0.05 mm length, which is 50 microns, I think you are done with the matching. \$\endgroup\$ – analogsystemsrf Apr 26 at 14:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, I'm done with matching, but I'm trying to discuss which of the options I used to get this matching is better EMI/SI wise. \$\endgroup\$ – IceBlackz May 1 at 7:03

For a given diffpair, both options seem valid. However I suggest thinking of the extension behind the connectors as an extension of the potential coupling surface. Just imagine it like a flattened coil.

Therefore I would strongly vote for option 2.

In addition option 2 minimizes the required space for the diffpair. As I usually try to keep them separated from other circuits, option 2 further leaves you with more free space for other parts of the system.

If you even need to match below 0.05mm length is another question, as you have to check the rise time of your bus.

A general rule is to keep the net length on a given layer as equal as you can within a bus of diffpairs as I think you are dealing with.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to the site :-) (a) As explained here, you must disclose when you link to your own website. Failure to do that could result in various sanctions. This site gets many Spam attempts, including planting links to PCB manufacturers (for example). So to avoid future problems for you, I recommend that you stick to the rules. (b) Please provide context for links, as mentioned here e.g. include a brief relevant quote from the page, to explain how the link is useful. Thanks :-) \$\endgroup\$ – SamGibson Apr 30 at 17:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ P.S. It's unclear what you mean by a "PM" - Stack Exchange sites don't have the same "PM" functionality which is common on typical internet forums. It also goes against the spirit of Stack Exchange, where questions are posted (and, more importantly, the answers are written) and can be read by everyone. PMs (obviously) don't have that benefit to others. Therefore I recommend you reconsider that part of your answer. Thanks :-) \$\endgroup\$ – SamGibson Apr 30 at 17:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for your answer Nocturn. I agree with the idea of the coupling effect, however, there is a ground layer in between. My baseless intuition says this will cancel out at least some of the coupling, and because I don't need the space behind the connector anyway, it makes a better option. The serpentine routing would potentially be seen as a straight line for high speed signals as suggested in this topic: electronics.stackexchange.com/a/145393/220495 \$\endgroup\$ – IceBlackz May 1 at 7:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SamGibson: Thanks for pointing out the special aspects of Stack exchange. Especially due to the link, I tried to avoid the idea of advertising so I skipped naming the page or company. Cheers :) \$\endgroup\$ – Nocturn May 1 at 18:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Nocturn - Thanks for the reply. However: "I tried to avoid the idea of advertising so I skipped naming the page or company." Writers are required to disclose when they are promoting anything (including themselves or their company) as in my first link previously - just "skipping" naming a link to your company could be considered even worse i.e. some people may consider it deliberate deception! I have read the link, and IMHO it doesn't specifically answer the original question. So, to prevent you being accused of spamming, I've edited your answer to remove it. \$\endgroup\$ – SamGibson May 1 at 18:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.