Le Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:27:37 -0500 (EST) sdb@xxxxxxxxxx (Stuart Brorson) a écrit : > Hi > > > I've taken a look at that kind of error: > > "order of pinnumber in slotdef does not match pinseq order" > > A word of caution: > > There are situations where pinnumber != pinseq. In particular, my > spice-sdb netlister triggers off of pinseq in order to know which > order to emit pins for SPICE netlisting. This is because SPICE > .subckts require that the nets be listed in a particular order to > connect them correctly. This order is not the same as the numbering > of the pins on the package. > > For example, the classic op-amp has pins numbered on an 8-pin package > (e.g. DIP-8 or SO-8) as follows: > > 1 -- NC (or bias) > 2 -- Vin- > 3 -- Vin+ > 4 -- VEE > 5 -- NC > 6 -- Vout > 7 -- VCC > 8 -- NC (or bias) > > However, here's how the SPICE .subckt numbers the nets on an OP177, > which is a typical el-cheapo 8 pin op-amp: > > * Node assignments > * non-inverting input > * | inverting input > * | | positive supply > * | | | negative supply > * | | | | output > * | | | | | > .SUBCKT OP177 1 2 99 50 39 > > The reason I made spice-sdb trigger off of pinseq was that I > understood that PCB used only pinnumber to number the pins, and it > ignored pinseq. It was a pinseq trouble. Cordially. > > Therefore, as long as PCB only uses pinnumber, please leave the pinseq > alone, unless you know for a fact that it must be renumbered to fix > some other netlister. > > Stuart > -- Sur http://www.iznogood-factory.org , vous avez parmi des doc techniques en français, celle de cinglés qui développent des outils pour les schémas électroniques: gEDA.
Attachment:
pgpTOWwh3gcZm.pgp
Description: PGP signature