Received: from PCH.mit.edu (18.7.21.50) by mail.efplus.com (192.168.0.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.485.1; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 11:01:30 -0700 Received: from PCH.MIT.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 08CHp5jg025036; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:51:15 -0400 Received: from outgoing-exchange-1.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.15]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 08CHp4OO025033 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:51:04 -0400 Received: from w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (W92EXEDGE3.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.7.73.15]) by outgoing-exchange-1.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 08CHonrN031004 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:51:04 -0400 Received: from oc11exhyb1.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.60) by w92exedge3.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.73.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:50:42 -0400 Received: from oc11exhyb5.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.110) by oc11exhyb1.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:50:47 -0400 Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.38.55) by oc11exhyb5.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:50:47 -0400 Received: from MWHPR14CA0006.namprd14.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:ae::16) by DM6PR01MB5067.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:5:58::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3370.16; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:50:47 +0000 Received: from CO1NAM03FT059.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:ae:cafe::50) by MWHPR14CA0006.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:300:ae::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3370.16 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:50:46 +0000 Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (40.92.20.54) by CO1NAM03FT059.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.81.192) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3370.16 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:50:46 +0000 Received: from BN1PR13CA0029.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:e2::34) by BN6PR1301MB2196.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:32::38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3391.8; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:50:44 +0000 Received: from BN7NAM10FT052.eop-nam10.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:408:e2:cafe::14) by BN1PR13CA0029.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:408:e2::34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3391.5 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:50:44 +0000 Received: from BYAPR02MB4055.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e8f::40) by BN7NAM10FT052.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e8f::198) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3370.16 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:50:44 +0000 Received: from BYAPR02MB4055.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fdbf:6005:f659:b4f]) by BYAPR02MB4055.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fdbf:6005:f659:b4f%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3370.018; Sat, 12 Sep 2020 17:50:44 +0000 From: Bob Blick To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 10:50:44 -0700 Subject: Re: [EE] Four Layer Routing Strategy Thread-Topic: [EE] Four Layer Routing Strategy Thread-Index: AQHWiSkIoY8uADQ9w0ysLqm2PdvdXqllRtjO Message-ID: References: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: TS500.efplus4.local X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: Pass X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: mit.edu X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US received-spf: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of outlook.com designates 40.92.20.54 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=40.92.20.54; helo=NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com; dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=0O7N6St3TvlKhuV8Nl6hx/l9Abgm7G5zeNwcAmFe3Fw=; b=gJvpheKRNuJUNVQs52Xh1klZdNRicHUOkTAthOmB2ATc5ljm1CluGqgqrN3SubRDKfjpuTAsTGoxs88N9q/OBago3OQgLy8hVDm7weSinfN2/SkzurZGtTbDvZ8foaV2Hb1T1gAJt6sTMKb3IndeChYgwHgyjvXMDJeu5QZ7sIV8gVc+aFflXytxkZLbW71TDwUpzmAe/6qtvZHqSSsG77u5IU6aGFH2AaZP7XEk6dQu/+DBFja0v/9chahYQsBmUR19IJMLryupOtr0bMIHhk60UV6CxgIYPmH3VLwnbo2jWZQ7cX9w0NpEaVs0CPDXmQ4SeCmi63WAJTOmahMacA== authentication-results: spf=pass (sender IP is 40.92.20.54) smtp.mailfrom=outlook.com; mit.edu; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=outlook.com; mit.edu; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=outlook.com; errors-to: piclist-bounces@mit.edu list-id: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." list-post: x-beenthere: piclist@mit.edu x-mailman-version: 2.1.6 x-topics: [EE] x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by PCH.mit.edu id 08CHp4OO025033 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi Josh, If you can use layer 2 for ground and layer 3 for +3.3 then you are getting= the best possible compromise. I say compromise only because having all you= r routing on inner layers with buried vias is probably theoretically better= , but it would be a ridiculously dumb thing in the real world. Friendly regards, Bob ________________________________________ From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu on behalf of Josh K= offman Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:10 AM To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Subject: [EE] Four Layer Routing Strategy Hi all, I'm working on my first 4 layer board. I feel a bit like I failed cramming it all into two layers, but I recognize that having so many vias on every trace would be less than ideal. I'm using top and bottom for signals, then the inner layers for power. The board isn't anything crazy RF, just some regular digital signals. There is some digital audio on the board, so there are a few "medium" frequency traces. I plan on using the top inner layer for ground. I'll do it like I normally do, which is to route the ground traces manually, then do a pour that connects to the ground trace in one place. On the bottom inner layer I'm going to route my 3.3V traces. There will be a lot of free space on that layer. So the question is, what should I do with the free space on the 3.3V layer? I could do either a 3.3V pour or another ground pour. I lean towards another ground pour but I don't want to inadvertently create a weird capacitor. Any suggestions? Since this is my first time I'd like to not have to re-make the board because of this particular error! Thank you! Josh --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .