>> >>> >>>> 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. >> > > I do as well, I have added to my code an attribute that tells the > netlister to not include this sybol in the bom. In essence, I am > saying > that this symbol is part of a collection of symbols and that this > particular symbol isn't the one that provides the bom info. So it > could > also be a clue to a drc that it shouldn't be judged to be a duplicate > part. >
as i see this, adding attributes for multi-graphic symbols, there should be a X of Y attribute. the DRC then could warn or error on a missing X in the sequence of the Y in a particular refdes. 4 symbols make a part refdes=U1A multiOF=4 multiPart=1 refdes=U1B multiOF=4 multiPart=2 refdes=U1C multiOF=4 multiPart=3 refdes=U2D multiOF=4 multiPart=4 The drc checker would then complain that U1 is missing 1 of 4 parts: 4 U2 is missing 3 of 4 parts: 1, 2, 3 > >>> 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. > > Mater of personal preference that I woun't argue about. But then we > should have a way of surpressing drc warnings or errors for this > type of > slotted device. no_unused_slot_drc=true # opt out not opt in > i propose that DRC be more of a plugin approach. Having a config file for your design that enables what plugins you want to enable. also a DRC waiver attribute for the symbols. i would like to have a check that tests if a 2 pin component has the same net on both sides of the component. this normally is a problem, but i have placed resistors that i have shorted out so that i can place a resistor there by cutting the trace and placing the part, in this case attaching a DRC waiver to the part is needed. >> >>> 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. >> > > I am in favior of heavier pins. I think that devices should have a way > of saying. Hey a Vcc power pin for this device should only be > connected > to nets that have 3.3V. This would have possibly prevented one flipped > power level for a subcircuit on a recent board. Pop goes the > tantalims ;) > > One reason pin classification is so hard is that there is no > attempt to > limit attributes to any type of object and that the value of an > attribute can be anything. > > A smarter attribute system that says net segments can have this > list of > attributes and each of these attributes gets a list of legal values. > Then the selction method would restrict users to reasonable values. > I feel that the unbounded attribute system has allowed great flexibility, but I can see having more standard attributes, with ranges and enumerations specified. all of my symbols i make get a Mouser and Digikey field, for obvious reasons. Steve _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user