Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity

[Dave N6NZ <n6nz@xxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 3, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Vanessa Ezekowitz wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:47:19 -0500
> Ethan Swint <eswint.ramu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/03/2010 03:33 AM, timecop wrote:
>>>> At the very least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that
>>>> "any" pin with the same number satisfies the connection. 
>>> fairly ridiculous assumption especially with ICs, many of which
>>> specifically say something like "all GND/VCC pads must be connected".
>>> 
>> In which case, the pins have unique numbers, if not names.
> 
<snip>
> Routing signals through those internal connections would have been no issue at all, though I wouldn't have thought to actually do so in the projects in question (and adding the extra copper to satisfy the netlist was no big deal).

I imagine that's often the case.  With a switch matrix, however, it can be a huge help in eliminating crossings.

> 
> To that end, if I had to make a suggestion, it would be if the component can't handle the possibility of signals flowing through its internal connections (unsafe, won't work, etc.), then the footprint should get unique pin numbers and the existing policy should apply.

That also seems correct to me, but I haven't gone on a thorough hunt for counter-examples.

> 
> Otherwise, give each of the pins in an electrically-connected set the same number, and PCB should simply assume they're electrically equivalent.  PCB should also further assume that connecting two such pins together with a copper trace does not violate the netlist.
> 
Yup.

<snip>

> 
> ("Yeah, that's fine Vanessa, but who's going to write all the code to implement it?" :-) )

The $64 question.  Somebody that is familiar with the code will have to comment on the scale of this effort.

-dave




_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user