Re: gEDA-user: Symbol style recommendations

[Christian Riggenbach <criggenbach@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am Donnerstag 19 März 2009 16.29:02 schrieb maillist.peter@xxxxxxx:
> Hello!
>
> I have done some symbols (microprocessors etc.) using the djboxsym
> tool and I have put the signals as they are located on the real chip
> (i.e. correct pin number order).
>
> I have now looked at some of your schematics and see that some of
> you have grouped the signals more logical (i.e. PA0-7, VCC, GND
> etc.) together.
>
> This seems very handy when drawing the schematics but I wonder if
> there are any problems with this method?
>
> As I understand, as long as you define what chip type it is it will
> be resolved and correctly translated once you generate the PCB.
>
> Best regards,
> Peter

Hi

The schematic just a abstraction of the physics of the board. So you can draw 
what you want as long as it is correct :).

I generally make the symbols as less "physical" as possible to improve the 
readability of the schematics (and I hate the schematics with a large 150+ pin 
uC in the middle and a ton of discretes around it ;) ). You can even split up 
a large uC to smaller portions of it, pe. each port or each funtional block 
like ethernet or RAM-interface. The only thing you have to make shure is that 
the symbols splitted up have the same refdes.

It is possible to attach a attribute to connect some general pins (like the 
power-pins) to a net (pe. GND or VCC).

This methode is a bit harder to learn, but much simpler to read if you look at 
your schematics later or have large projects.

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüssen

Christian Riggenbach



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