Re: gEDA-user: Footprint naming convention

[andrewm <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Luciani wrote:
> 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 *)
>
>   

Thanks John,

However the extra meat I put on some pads for prototype soldering is 
well in excess of the IPC-7351 most material.

I think I will just pop a suffix on the back of them for my own use and 
I shall never release the footprints to not confuse others.




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