Re: gEDA-user: Footprint naming convention

["John Luciani" <jluciani@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/1/07, andrewm <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am presently drawing up footprints for my stock components.
>
> I have read the naming conventions for the footprints and have
> done some searches but can't find an answer to this query.
>
> I have for many components two different foot prints.  I would
> like to know if there is a convention to naming the multiples.
>
> I don't mean I have a device that comes in a DIP40 and also
> comes in a TQFP44.  I mean I wish to have two version of a
> MSSOP28W (0.65mm 28 lead 5.3mm wide package)
> footprint.
>
> I would like one version of the footprint following the
> manufacturer approved pin width/length.  I would also like
> another version with longer pins that I use in prototype
> boards that I will hand solder.

If you followed a manufacturer's specification I would use a suffix
that calls out the specific manufacturer and package
designation (e.g. "__TI_DRC_Package")

IPC-7351 calls out an environment use suffix which you could probably use
for designating larger prototype pads. The "Most Material" condition
may work for
your prototype fooprints and the "Nominal Material" for a production process.

M ... Most Material
N ... Nominal Material
L ... Least Material

I am thinking of adding the suffixes "MM", "NM", "LM" to my naming convention
to correspond to the IPC-7351 material conditions.

(* jcl *)

-- 
http://www.luciani.org


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