Re: gEDA-user: Stupid symbol tricks

[John Griessen <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ben Jackson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 01:46:40PM +0100, Stefan Salewski wrote:

>> Would you suggest to modify the symbols?
> 
> Well, in my case I am realizing that I made a symbol that led me to miss
> connecting a pin.  I'm trying to learn from it, by keeping in mind that
> if I put a must-connect pin next to a dozen "can connect" pins (port IO
> in this case) I am more likely to miss it than if I put it in with all
> the other must-connect pins like power, clock, config, etc.
.
.
.

I agree.  When you have many pins, having the schematic drc find unconnected "must-connect" pins
seems the only practical way...a visual check can miss
is the way I think about it.  One way to handle that is to make split up symbols
all with same refdes, with one split up section of a chip being the must-connect pins.

This makes me think of creating a "must-connect" group as attribs in a symbol, and making the drc2 backend
use that to check connects.  I've gotten familiarized with gnetlist now, so I might find time to take a look at that.
anyone see any logic flaw with the idea?

What that would do for you is allow to use a layout-oriented symbol
that is just like the chip pin rows and still check for must-connects.  When I do that now, it means
I spend a good while checking over the pin descriptions in the datasheet as I make the schematic, and put no-connect symbols
on all unused floating pins.  A "must-connect" group DRC could be a time saver.

John Griessen

-- 
Ecosensory   Austin TX


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