On May 24, 2011, at 2:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Up to now, we've been using the schematic as the "master" files for > the design. Perhaps this is a bad idiom? Perhaps "the design" should > be some other data, which uses the schematic as but one of its inputs?
If you have a hierarchical design, one extra thing you need to track somehow is which schematics are at the top level, so you know which ones to feed explicitly to gnetlist. There may also be variant designs based on different but overlapping sets of schematics (my chip designs are like that). I also use pins2gsch a lot for connector maps: maintaining connectors as drawings is a pain, and not very illuminating, I think. In this case, the master is the .tsv that defines the map, not the .sch that's derived from it. I used this for the CCD driver board whose picture I posted earlier, and I'm really glad I did: the folks on the other sides of the interfaces kept changing pin assignments, and a table is much easier to fix than a drawing. So, already, for me the schematics themselves don't completely define a design, at least in my "big project" flows. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
