On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Steve Meier wrote: > U1 > > pin 1 "D1" pas > pin 2 "NC" pas > pin 3 "D3" pas > pin 4 "S3" pas > pin 5 "S4" pas > pin 6 "D4" pas > pin 7 "NC" pas > pin 8 "D2" pas > pin 9 "S2" pas > pin 10 "IN2" in > pin 11 "V+" pwr > pin 12 "VL" pwr > pin 13 "GND" pwr > pin 14 "V-" pwr > pin 15 "IN1" in > pin 16 "S1" pas > > > J1 pins are pas
Yes. But does that really make sense? > > nets: > > U1.1 U1.3 U1.4 U1.5 U1.6 U1.8 J1.A4 > U1.9 U1.10 U1.11 U1.12 U1.13 U1.14 U1.15 J1.B3 > U1.16 J1.A4 > > > First: J1.A4 is used twice in effect reducing the nets to two nets Yes. Is that a real error? I think it is right now, but should gnetlist treat these as separate nets? It doesn't for a ground symbol, for example. > > U1.1 U1.3 U1.4 U1.5 U1.6 U1.8 U1.16 J1.A4 All pins pas > U1.9 U1.10 U1.11 U1.12 U1.13 U1.14 U1.15 J1.B3 pins include types > such as pas, in and pwr > > > For the second net arcording to the drc2 matrix > > 1) pas may connect to pas, in or pwr > 2) in may connect to in or pwr > > There for DRC2 thinks that there are no connection errors. Yes. Those rules are almost useless in mixed signal circuits. > >> From my reading of DRC2 it tests for > > 1) Non numbered parts > 2) Duplicate references But, of course, some of us often use multiple symbols for one part. > 3) One connection nets That's somewhat useful. But it also complains of unconnected pins, which are normal, not usually errors. > 4) net pin types Using a classification nearly irrelevant to anything except pure digital design. > 5) slots > 6) duplicated slots > 7) un-used slots > > I would expect complaints about duplicate slots and un-used slots. Unused connector pins are extremely common in error-free designs. And I think it adds clarity to treat connectors as multi-slot rather than having a lot of named lines converging on a big block. > Not > about the way the pins are hooked together. One obvious weakness is > that > the test schematic connects, V+, V-, VL and GND together. These are > all > type pwr and thus according to the matrix they may be connected. I > think > this is a weakness of pins not being heavier. Yes, but how to fix. Making the pins heavier will make symbol construction even harder for new users. Pin classification is already confusing. > > Steve Meier > > On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 09:36 -0700, John Doty wrote: >> On Nov 6, 2007, at 7:27 AM, Steve Meier wrote: >> >>> What do we expect the schematic DRC to catch? >>> >>> 1) Detect duplicate use of reference designators, but don't >>> complain if >>> the usage is for different slots. >>> 2) For a multi-symbol device check to make sure that the pins arn't >>> used >>> multiple times? >> >> Is that an error? >> >>> >>> But what else and what are the implications for heavy/light symbols? >> >> Here's a simple schematic, with a silly useless circuit, many >> problems. It provokes *numerous* drc2 errors and warnings, but only >> two of them are real mistakes. And arguably, one should be able to >> duplicate connector pins for clarity within the schematic, although >> right now such usage doesn't netlist correctly. But drc2 misses all >> of the intentional errors. >> >>> >>> Steve Meier >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> geda-user mailing list >>> geda-user@moria.seul.org >>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user >> >> John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. >> http://www.noqsi.com/ >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> geda-user mailing list >> geda-user@moria.seul.org >> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user > > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-user mailing list > geda-user@moria.seul.org > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user