Thanks, all. Since this is a government program, we decided to do as
Rick suggested and use an I2C level shifter IC. Specifically we're
using the PCA9306D.
The camera has to fly on an airplane in very tight quarters, so space is
a real problem, but saving one package just wasn't worth the amount of
documentation work required to get the pull-up resistor thing through
formal design reviews successfully.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.nethttp://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by Jasen Betts●June 29, 20232023-06-29
On 2023-06-28, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> So we're doing this high speed lidar camera that I've been talking
> about. It has a Cyclone V system-on-module, which seems pretty nice,
> although I haven't gone into it very deeply.
>
> So my question is: Is it sane and reasonable to drag a 2.5V I2C on a
> Cyclone V up to 3.3V?
0.8V, seems risky, how much current flows?
Your basic I2C level shifter is one MOSFET per line.
https://cdn-shop.adafruit.com/datasheets/AN10441.pdf
--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні
Reply by Fred Bloggs●June 28, 20232023-06-28
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> So we're doing this high speed lidar camera that I've been talking
> about. It has a Cyclone V system-on-module, which seems pretty nice,
> although I haven't gone into it very deeply.
>
> For various control and monitoring things, we need to run an I2C I/O
> expander using a built-in I2C PHY connected to a hard core.
>
> Because we don't have fine-grained control over the I/O voltage of the
> FPGA outputs, most of the I/O has to run at 2.5V, maybe including the
> I2C PHY. That's okay for some stuff, such as the I2C E2PROM.
>
> However, our magic sensor chip uses a single 3.3V rail for everything,
> so the I/O expander (currently a PCA9674A) needs to run off a +3.3V rail
> too.
>
> A worst-case logic high on the 2.5V side isn't guaranteed to be a HIGH
> on the 3.3V side, so we want to pull the I2C up to 3.3V.
>
> The Cyclone V book says that its inputs will survive 3.6V, so that's
> okay as long as the protection network doesn't start conducting too much
> below 3.3. (I2C pullups are pretty wimpy, so it doesn't take much to
> drag them down a bit, and I'm not immediately finding a spec on that.)
>
> For a normal chip, I'd expect it to pull up to at least +3 even if there
> were plain vanilla ESD diodes on the I2C pins, which would meet the
> logic-HIGH spec easily.
>
> FPGAs are strange beasts in some ways, though, leading to doubts.
>
> So my question is: Is it sane and reasonable to drag a 2.5V I2C on a
> Cyclone V up to 3.3V?
Or maybe better insert the tbx0108 between the Cyclops and the 3.3V powered expander.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal Consultant
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
>
> http://electrooptical.net
> http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by Fred Bloggs●June 28, 20232023-06-28
On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 1:56:17 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> So we're doing this high speed lidar camera that I've been talking
> about. It has a Cyclone V system-on-module, which seems pretty nice,
> although I haven't gone into it very deeply.
>
> For various control and monitoring things, we need to run an I2C I/O
> expander using a built-in I2C PHY connected to a hard core.
>
> Because we don't have fine-grained control over the I/O voltage of the
> FPGA outputs, most of the I/O has to run at 2.5V, maybe including the
> I2C PHY. That's okay for some stuff, such as the I2C E2PROM.
>
> However, our magic sensor chip uses a single 3.3V rail for everything,
> so the I/O expander (currently a PCA9674A) needs to run off a +3.3V rail
> too.
>
> A worst-case logic high on the 2.5V side isn't guaranteed to be a HIGH
> on the 3.3V side, so we want to pull the I2C up to 3.3V.
>
> The Cyclone V book says that its inputs will survive 3.6V, so that's
> okay as long as the protection network doesn't start conducting too much
> below 3.3. (I2C pullups are pretty wimpy, so it doesn't take much to
> drag them down a bit, and I'm not immediately finding a spec on that.)
>
> For a normal chip, I'd expect it to pull up to at least +3 even if there
> were plain vanilla ESD diodes on the I2C pins, which would meet the
> logic-HIGH spec easily.
>
> FPGAs are strange beasts in some ways, though, leading to doubts.
>
> So my question is: Is it sane and reasonable to drag a 2.5V I2C on a
> Cyclone V up to 3.3V?
How much trouble is it to insert one of these*, or something similar, between the expander and sensor? Power the expander with the 2.5V.
https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/txb0108.pdf
* just an example, I have no idea of this product line, by function even.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal Consultant
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
>
> http://electrooptical.net
> http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by Lasse Langwadt Christensen●June 28, 20232023-06-28
onsdag den 28. juni 2023 kl. 23.49.46 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 14:38:07 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> >onsdag den 28. juni 2023 kl. 22.03.19 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
> >> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:56:03 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> >> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So we're doing this high speed lidar camera that I've been talking
> >> >about. It has a Cyclone V system-on-module, which seems pretty nice,
> >> >although I haven't gone into it very deeply.
> >> >
> >> >For various control and monitoring things, we need to run an I2C I/O
> >> >expander using a built-in I2C PHY connected to a hard core.
> >> >
> >> >Because we don't have fine-grained control over the I/O voltage of the
> >> >FPGA outputs, most of the I/O has to run at 2.5V, maybe including the
> >> >I2C PHY. That's okay for some stuff, such as the I2C E2PROM.
> >> >
> >> >However, our magic sensor chip uses a single 3.3V rail for everything,
> >> >so the I/O expander (currently a PCA9674A) needs to run off a +3.3V rail
> >> >too.
> >> >
> >> >A worst-case logic high on the 2.5V side isn't guaranteed to be a HIGH
> >> >on the 3.3V side, so we want to pull the I2C up to 3.3V.
> >> >
> >> >The Cyclone V book says that its inputs will survive 3.6V, so that's
> >> >okay as long as the protection network doesn't start conducting too much
> >> >below 3.3. (I2C pullups are pretty wimpy, so it doesn't take much to
> >> >drag them down a bit, and I'm not immediately finding a spec on that.)
> >> >
> >> >For a normal chip, I'd expect it to pull up to at least +3 even if there
> >> >were plain vanilla ESD diodes on the I2C pins, which would meet the
> >> >logic-HIGH spec easily.
> >> >
> >> >FPGAs are strange beasts in some ways, though, leading to doubts.
> >> >
> >> >So my question is: Is it sane and reasonable to drag a 2.5V I2C on a
> >> >Cyclone V up to 3.3V?
> >> >
> >> >Thanks
> >> >
> >> >Phil Hobbs
> >> An open-drain with a pullup should be fine. Even if the ESD diode goes
> >> to 2.5, it will still get over +3, enough for the I2C target.
> >
> >looking at the datasheet it doesn't look like it has diodes to Vccio configured 2.5V,3.0V, or 3.3V IO
> >it list 3.6V as max for single ended input with 2.5V,3.0V, or 3.3V Vccio
> >
> >
> They probably clamp to ground and 3.3v.
I don't think so, if the IO is powered with 2.5V there is no 3.3V to clamp to
Seems like quite few fpgas and mcus have started to use a zener clamp instead of a diode to supply
Reply by Dimiter_Popoff●June 28, 20232023-06-28
On 6/28/2023 20:56, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> So we're doing this high speed lidar camera that I've been talking
> about. It has a Cyclone V system-on-module, which seems pretty nice,
> although I haven't gone into it very deeply.
>
> For various control and monitoring things, we need to run an I2C I/O
> expander using a built-in I2C PHY connected to a hard core.
>
> Because we don't have fine-grained control over the I/O voltage of the
> FPGA outputs, most of the I/O has to run at 2.5V, maybe including the
> I2C PHY. That's okay for some stuff, such as the I2C E2PROM.
>
> However, our magic sensor chip uses a single 3.3V rail for everything,
> so the I/O expander (currently a PCA9674A) needs to run off a +3.3V rail
> too.
>
> A worst-case logic high on the 2.5V side isn't guaranteed to be a HIGH
> on the 3.3V side, so we want to pull the I2C up to 3.3V.
>
> The Cyclone V book says that its inputs will survive 3.6V, so that's
> okay as long as the protection network doesn't start conducting too much
> below 3.3. (I2C pullups are pretty wimpy, so it doesn't take much to
> drag them down a bit, and I'm not immediately finding a spec on that.)
>
> For a normal chip, I'd expect it to pull up to at least +3 even if there
> were plain vanilla ESD diodes on the I2C pins, which would meet the
> logic-HIGH spec easily.
>
> FPGAs are strange beasts in some ways, though, leading to doubts.
>
> So my question is: Is it sane and reasonable to drag a 2.5V I2C on a
> Cyclone V up to 3.3V?
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
I'd be very cautious about that. If the FPGA output is just open drain
you should be fine. However this is unlikely to be the case, open drain
is just emulated with the upper transistor staying off all the time.
Except perhaps during transients, like power up/down etc.... Then
you'd have 3.3.V -> 2.5V rail. Given that the I2C will be pulled up
by no less than 1K I guess this should be survivable, provided the
2.5V rail can stay 2.5 during such events.
======================================================
Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com
======================================================
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/
Reply by John Larkin●June 28, 20232023-06-28
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 14:38:07 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:
>onsdag den 28. juni 2023 kl. 22.03.19 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
>> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:56:03 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So we're doing this high speed lidar camera that I've been talking
>> >about. It has a Cyclone V system-on-module, which seems pretty nice,
>> >although I haven't gone into it very deeply.
>> >
>> >For various control and monitoring things, we need to run an I2C I/O
>> >expander using a built-in I2C PHY connected to a hard core.
>> >
>> >Because we don't have fine-grained control over the I/O voltage of the
>> >FPGA outputs, most of the I/O has to run at 2.5V, maybe including the
>> >I2C PHY. That's okay for some stuff, such as the I2C E2PROM.
>> >
>> >However, our magic sensor chip uses a single 3.3V rail for everything,
>> >so the I/O expander (currently a PCA9674A) needs to run off a +3.3V rail
>> >too.
>> >
>> >A worst-case logic high on the 2.5V side isn't guaranteed to be a HIGH
>> >on the 3.3V side, so we want to pull the I2C up to 3.3V.
>> >
>> >The Cyclone V book says that its inputs will survive 3.6V, so that's
>> >okay as long as the protection network doesn't start conducting too much
>> >below 3.3. (I2C pullups are pretty wimpy, so it doesn't take much to
>> >drag them down a bit, and I'm not immediately finding a spec on that.)
>> >
>> >For a normal chip, I'd expect it to pull up to at least +3 even if there
>> >were plain vanilla ESD diodes on the I2C pins, which would meet the
>> >logic-HIGH spec easily.
>> >
>> >FPGAs are strange beasts in some ways, though, leading to doubts.
>> >
>> >So my question is: Is it sane and reasonable to drag a 2.5V I2C on a
>> >Cyclone V up to 3.3V?
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >Phil Hobbs
>> An open-drain with a pullup should be fine. Even if the ESD diode goes
>> to 2.5, it will still get over +3, enough for the I2C target.
>
>looking at the datasheet it doesn't look like it has diodes to Vccio configured 2.5V,3.0V, or 3.3V IO
>it list 3.6V as max for single ended input with 2.5V,3.0V, or 3.3V Vccio
>
>
They probably clamp to ground and 3.3v.
>
>
We tried using FPGA pins with a few resistors as cheapie DACs, or one
pin as a PWM or delta-sigma DAC, but the high and low levels are
neither DC accurate nor quiet, so we ran them through external cmos
buffers with solid grounds and power supply. We phase-lock VCXOs that
way, with the phase-frequency comparator in the FPGA and a 1-bit
output to the VCO input.
Most LVDS inputs are actually OK rrio comparators, a bit more jitter
than one might like.
Reply by Lasse Langwadt Christensen●June 28, 20232023-06-28
onsdag den 28. juni 2023 kl. 22.03.19 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:56:03 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
> >So we're doing this high speed lidar camera that I've been talking
> >about. It has a Cyclone V system-on-module, which seems pretty nice,
> >although I haven't gone into it very deeply.
> >
> >For various control and monitoring things, we need to run an I2C I/O
> >expander using a built-in I2C PHY connected to a hard core.
> >
> >Because we don't have fine-grained control over the I/O voltage of the
> >FPGA outputs, most of the I/O has to run at 2.5V, maybe including the
> >I2C PHY. That's okay for some stuff, such as the I2C E2PROM.
> >
> >However, our magic sensor chip uses a single 3.3V rail for everything,
> >so the I/O expander (currently a PCA9674A) needs to run off a +3.3V rail
> >too.
> >
> >A worst-case logic high on the 2.5V side isn't guaranteed to be a HIGH
> >on the 3.3V side, so we want to pull the I2C up to 3.3V.
> >
> >The Cyclone V book says that its inputs will survive 3.6V, so that's
> >okay as long as the protection network doesn't start conducting too much
> >below 3.3. (I2C pullups are pretty wimpy, so it doesn't take much to
> >drag them down a bit, and I'm not immediately finding a spec on that.)
> >
> >For a normal chip, I'd expect it to pull up to at least +3 even if there
> >were plain vanilla ESD diodes on the I2C pins, which would meet the
> >logic-HIGH spec easily.
> >
> >FPGAs are strange beasts in some ways, though, leading to doubts.
> >
> >So my question is: Is it sane and reasonable to drag a 2.5V I2C on a
> >Cyclone V up to 3.3V?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Phil Hobbs
> An open-drain with a pullup should be fine. Even if the ESD diode goes
> to 2.5, it will still get over +3, enough for the I2C target.
looking at the datasheet it doesn't look like it has diodes to Vccio configured 2.5V,3.0V, or 3.3V IO
it list 3.6V as max for single ended input with 2.5V,3.0V, or 3.3V Vccio
Reply by John Larkin●June 28, 20232023-06-28
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:56:03 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>So we're doing this high speed lidar camera that I've been talking
>about. It has a Cyclone V system-on-module, which seems pretty nice,
>although I haven't gone into it very deeply.
>
>For various control and monitoring things, we need to run an I2C I/O
>expander using a built-in I2C PHY connected to a hard core.
>
>Because we don't have fine-grained control over the I/O voltage of the
>FPGA outputs, most of the I/O has to run at 2.5V, maybe including the
>I2C PHY. That's okay for some stuff, such as the I2C E2PROM.
>
>However, our magic sensor chip uses a single 3.3V rail for everything,
>so the I/O expander (currently a PCA9674A) needs to run off a +3.3V rail
>too.
>
>A worst-case logic high on the 2.5V side isn't guaranteed to be a HIGH
>on the 3.3V side, so we want to pull the I2C up to 3.3V.
>
>The Cyclone V book says that its inputs will survive 3.6V, so that's
>okay as long as the protection network doesn't start conducting too much
>below 3.3. (I2C pullups are pretty wimpy, so it doesn't take much to
>drag them down a bit, and I'm not immediately finding a spec on that.)
>
>For a normal chip, I'd expect it to pull up to at least +3 even if there
>were plain vanilla ESD diodes on the I2C pins, which would meet the
>logic-HIGH spec easily.
>
>FPGAs are strange beasts in some ways, though, leading to doubts.
>
>So my question is: Is it sane and reasonable to drag a 2.5V I2C on a
>Cyclone V up to 3.3V?
>
>Thanks
>
>Phil Hobbs
In one case, I added diode drops to some 3.3v FPGA outputs to drive a
few beastly 5-volt output buffers. +0.7 to +4 worked fine. The chips
fried if Vhigh was 3.3. Three NL37WZ16's in parellel per line, makes
nice sub-ns pulses into 50 ohms.
Reply by John Larkin●June 28, 20232023-06-28
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:56:03 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>So we're doing this high speed lidar camera that I've been talking
>about. It has a Cyclone V system-on-module, which seems pretty nice,
>although I haven't gone into it very deeply.
>
>For various control and monitoring things, we need to run an I2C I/O
>expander using a built-in I2C PHY connected to a hard core.
>
>Because we don't have fine-grained control over the I/O voltage of the
>FPGA outputs, most of the I/O has to run at 2.5V, maybe including the
>I2C PHY. That's okay for some stuff, such as the I2C E2PROM.
>
>However, our magic sensor chip uses a single 3.3V rail for everything,
>so the I/O expander (currently a PCA9674A) needs to run off a +3.3V rail
>too.
>
>A worst-case logic high on the 2.5V side isn't guaranteed to be a HIGH
>on the 3.3V side, so we want to pull the I2C up to 3.3V.
>
>The Cyclone V book says that its inputs will survive 3.6V, so that's
>okay as long as the protection network doesn't start conducting too much
>below 3.3. (I2C pullups are pretty wimpy, so it doesn't take much to
>drag them down a bit, and I'm not immediately finding a spec on that.)
>
>For a normal chip, I'd expect it to pull up to at least +3 even if there
>were plain vanilla ESD diodes on the I2C pins, which would meet the
>logic-HIGH spec easily.
>
>FPGAs are strange beasts in some ways, though, leading to doubts.
>
>So my question is: Is it sane and reasonable to drag a 2.5V I2C on a
>Cyclone V up to 3.3V?
>
>Thanks
>
>Phil Hobbs
An open-drain with a pullup should be fine. Even if the ESD diode goes
to 2.5, it will still get over +3, enough for the I2C target.