% $Header: /cvsroot/latex-beamer/latex-beamer/solutions/conference-talks/conference-ornate-20min.en.tex,v 1.7 2007/01/28 20:48:23 tantau Exp $

\documentclass{beamer}

% This file is a solution template for:

% - Talk at a conference/colloquium.
% - Talk length is about 20min.
% - Style is ornate.



% Copyright 2004 by Till Tantau <tantau@users.sourceforge.net>.
%
% In principle, this file can be redistributed and/or modified under
% the terms of the GNU Public License, version 2.
%
% However, this file is supposed to be a template to be modified
% for your own needs. For this reason, if you use this file as a
% template and not specifically distribute it as part of a another
% package/program, I grant the extra permission to freely copy and
% modify this file as you see fit and even to delete this copyright
% notice. 


\mode<presentation>
{
  \usetheme{Warsaw}
  % or ...

  \setbeamercovered{transparent}
  % or whatever (possibly just delete it)
}


\usepackage[english]{babel}
% or whatever

\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
% or whatever

\usepackage{times}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
% Or whatever. Note that the encoding and the font should match. If T1
% does not look nice, try deleting the line with the fontenc.


\title %[Short Paper Title] (optional, use only with long paper titles)
{Is WorldFIP a reliable rad-hard fieldbus for the long term?}

%\subtitle
%{Include Only If Paper Has a Subtitle}

\author%[Author, Another] % (optional, use only with lots of authors)
{Javier Serrano}
% - Give the names in the same order as the appear in the paper.
% - Use the \inst{?} command only if the authors have different
%   affiliation.

\institute%[Universities of Somewhere and Elsewhere] % (optional, but mostly needed)
{
%  \inst{1}%
  Hardware and Timing Section\\
  BE Controls Group\\
  CERN
%  \and
%  \inst{2}%
%  Department of Theoretical Philosophy\\
%  University of Elsewhere
}
% - Use the \inst command only if there are several affiliations.
% - Keep it simple, no one is interested in your street address.

\date%[Chamonix 2010] % (optional, should be abbreviation of conference name)
{LHC Performance Workshop 2010}
% - Either use conference name or its abbreviation.
% - Not really informative to the audience, more for people (including
%   yourself) who are reading the slides online

% \subject{Theoretical Computer Science}
% This is only inserted into the PDF information catalog. Can be left
% out. 



% If you have a file called "university-logo-filename.xxx", where xxx
% is a graphic format that can be processed by latex or pdflatex,
% resp., then you can add a logo as follows:

% \pgfdeclareimage[height=0.5cm]{university-logo}{university-logo-filename}
% \logo{\pgfuseimage{university-logo}}



% Delete this, if you do not want the table of contents to pop up at
% the beginning of each subsection:
\AtBeginSubsection[]
{
  \begin{frame}<beamer>{Outline}
    \tableofcontents[currentsection,currentsubsection]
  \end{frame}
}


% If you wish to uncover everything in a step-wise fashion, uncomment
% the following command: 

%\beamerdefaultoverlayspecification{<+->}


\begin{document}

\begin{frame}
  \titlepage
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Short answer}
  \begin{center}
    {\Huge YES}
  \end{center}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Short answer}
  \begin{center}
    {\Huge BUT\dots}
  \end{center}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Outline}
  \tableofcontents
  % You might wish to add the option [pausesections]
\end{frame}


% Structuring a talk is a difficult task and the following structure
% may not be suitable. Here are some rules that apply for this
% solution: 

% - Exactly two or three sections (other than the summary).
% - At *most* three subsections per section.
% - Talk about 30s to 2min per frame. So there should be between about
%   15 and 30 frames, all told.

% - A conference audience is likely to know very little of what you
%   are going to talk about. So *simplify*!
% - In a 20min talk, getting the main ideas across is hard
%   enough. Leave out details, even if it means being less precise than
%   you think necessary.
% - If you omit details that are vital to the proof/implementation,
%   just say so once. Everybody will be happy with that.

\section{Background}

%\subsection{Place of BE-CO in the WorldFIP ecosystem}

\begin{frame}{Introduction to WorldFIP}
  % - A title should summarize the slide in an understandable fashion
  %   for anyone how does not follow everything on the slide itself.
\begin{block}{General features}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item
    5V differential signaling.
  \item
    Twisted pair multi-drop.
  \item
    Up to 2.5 Mb/s.
  \end{itemize}
\end{block}
\begin{block}{Why it was chosen for LHC}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item
    Fully deterministic. Master grants media access to slaves.
  \item
    Radiation-tolerant slave chipset.
    \begin{itemize}
    \item 
      At least this was the case for the old generation MicroFIP.
    \item 
      A feature size change in the latest MicroFIPs has driven rad-tolerance down.
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{WorldFIP usage in the LHC}

  \begin{itemize}
  \item 
    Over 450 km of cables.
  \item 
    More than 12000 nodes.
  \item 
    Used in many critical LHC subsystems: Cryo, QPS, power converters, BI, RF, RadMon\dots 
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Organization so far}
\begin{block}{End users}
    Equipment groups design solutions based on Alstom technology.
\end{block}
\begin{block}{Local support}
    BE-CO-FE has a coordinating role:
    \begin{itemize}
    \item
      Procurement.
    \item 
      Cabling coordination and commissioning.
    \item 
      General know-how.
    \end{itemize}
\end{block}
\begin{block}{Technology provider}
    Alstom is the supplier of technology: chipsets and cards.
\end{block}
\end{frame}


\section{WorldFIP insourcing}

\begin{frame}{What changed}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item 
    Alstom decided to gradually stop support of WorldFIP technology.
  \item 
    Preliminary tests showed new generation of MicroFIP chips is much less tolerant to radiation.
  \item 
    CERN decided to buy the designs from Alstom and start an insourcing effort:
    \begin{itemize}
    \item 
      Short term goal: provide a rad-tol replacement for the MicroFIP.
    \item 
      Long term goal: have BE-CO-HT replace Alstom as a provider of technology.
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{The NanoFIP Project}{\url{http://www.ohwr.org/twiki/bin/view/OHR/CernFIP/CernFIP}}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item 
    A rad-hard alternative to MicroFIP in FPGA technology.
  \item 
    Collaborative effort driven by BE-CO, with the participation of EN-STI, TE-CRG, TE-EPC and TE-MPE.
  \item 
    Main deliverable can be used in two ways:
    \begin{itemize}
    \item 
      A Wishbone-compliant soft core to include in the client's global FPGA-based application.
    \item 
      The core instantiated on its own in a radiation-tested flash-based Actel FPGA.
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{NanoFIP Project Status 1/2}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item 
    WP1. Alstom MicroFIP preliminary VHDL code interpretation.~\checkmark
  \item 
    WP2. Write project management doc for insourcing of MicroFIP.~\checkmark
  \item 
    WP3. Write functional specification of MicroFIP replacement.~\checkmark
  \item 
    WP4. Rewrite and extend Alstom MicroFIP VHDL code. \emph{WP1 concluded that new VHDL code (WP5) was needed.}~\checkmark
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{NanoFIP Project Status 2/2}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item 
    WP5. Write new NanoFIP VHDL code. 
    \begin{itemize}
    \item 
      Without triplication, mostly done: scheduled for end of February.
    \item 
      Will try automatic triplication in Synplify. If not OK, will triplicate by hand.
    \end{itemize}
  \item 
    WP6. VHDL Testbench creation and simulation of NanoFIP. Very basic so far. {\bf Need help from users}.
  \item 
    WP7. Stand-alone mode test board design and test. Combined with WP8 (see below).
  \item 
    WP8. Design board for functional and radiation test. Outsourced to \href{http://www.hlp.fr/}{HLP Technologies}. Specs done. Boards expected in June.
  \item 
    WP9. Radiation tests. Not planned yet. 
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\section {Latest News}

\begin{frame}{Radiation Tests}{See D. Kramer's talk for details.}
Very difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison, but\dots
\begin{block}{Old MicroFIP}
MTBF of >18 days for nominal beam using Cryo gear.
\end{block}
\begin{block}{New MicroFIP}
MTBF of around 1h with nominal beam as observed in the tests with nQPS cards.
\end{block}
\begin{block}{Cu/Cu repeaters}
    \begin{itemize}
    \item
      Lifetime of around 16 years, only two units tested.
    \item 
      These contain only a FielDrive and an FPGA. Proves problem is with MicroFIP.
    \end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{MicroFIP3}{A potential collaboration with PH-ESE on a new ASIC for MicroFIP drop-in replacement.}
\begin{block}{Pros}
    \begin{itemize}
    \item 
      Many cards would not need a redesign.
    \item 
      Software can also be completely re-used.
    \item 
      Extreme radiation tolerance possible.
    \end{itemize}
\end{block}
\begin{block}{Cons}
    \begin{itemize}
    \item 
      High upfront cost.
    \item 
      Less flexible than NanoFIP.
    \item 
      High validation effort required.
    \item 
      Many unknowns for the time being. Risk of not being ready for 2011 is higher than for NanoFIP.
    \end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Proposal for 2010-2011}
    We propose to pursue both paths:
\begin{block}{NanoFIP: target startup 2011}
    \begin{itemize}
    \item 
      Low-risk development.
    \item 
      Allows integration into larger designs.
    \item 
      Useful on its own for many clients. Backup solution for MicroFIP3 clients.
    \end{itemize}
\end{block}
\begin{block}{MicroFIP3: target startup 2012}
    \begin{itemize}
    \item 
      Can save lots of redesign work.
    \item 
      Can achieve higher levels of rad-tolerance. 
    \item 
      BUT: responsibilities to be clarified between PH and BE from day 1.
    \end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}

\section*{Summary}

\begin{frame}{Summary}

  % Keep the summary *very short*.
  \begin{itemize}
  \item
    Key technology for LHC. Problems with radiation confirmed
    \begin{math}
      \rightarrow
    \end{math}
\textcolor{blue}{insourcing decision was right}.
  \item
    NanoFIP project delayed due to LHC startup pressure (other FIP users could not provide help). Will get \textcolor{blue}{more priority in 2010} (new post in BE-CO-HT, more help from TE-CRG\dots).
  \item
    Strategic decision to be taken on MicroFIP3.
    \begin{itemize}
    \item 
      Needs strong collaboration with PH-ESE.
    \item 
      And \textcolor{blue}{clarification of responsibilities}.
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
  
%   % The following outlook is optional.
%   \vskip0pt plus.5fill
%   \begin{itemize}
%   \item
%     Outlook
%     \begin{itemize}
%     \item
%       Something you haven't solved.
%     \item
%       Something else you haven't solved.
%     \end{itemize}
%   \end{itemize}
\end{frame}



% All of the following is optional and typically not needed. 
% \appendix
% \section<presentation>*{\appendixname}
% \subsection<presentation>*{For Further Reading}

% \begin{frame}[allowframebreaks]
%   \frametitle<presentation>{For Further Reading}
    
%   \begin{thebibliography}{10}
    
%   \beamertemplatebookbibitems
%   % Start with overview books.

%   \bibitem{Author1990}
%     A.~Author.
%     \newblock {\em Handbook of Everything}.
%     \newblock Some Press, 1990.
 
    
%   \beamertemplatearticlebibitems
%   % Followed by interesting articles. Keep the list short. 

%   \bibitem{Someone2000}
%     S.~Someone.
%     \newblock On this and that.
%     \newblock {\em Journal of This and That}, 2(1):50--100,
%     2000.
%   \end{thebibliography}
% \end{frame}

\end{document}


