On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 05:21:16PM +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:01:23 +, Michael Sokolov wrote:
I'm told that the OMAP3430's Package-on-Package configuration requires
at least six layers to get all the signals out. Ugh.
OK, that explains the need for a lot
I'm not sure why it's apparently irrelevant that the accepted predominant
workflow is from gschem to pcb
So what? What are all those other back ends for? Aren't they important?
or that pcb is a member project of the
geda project. If member projects and affiliated projects aren't
John Doty wrote:
To the man with a hammer, everything is a nail. I can think of
three gEDA problems that have resulted from developers being scenario-
driven rather than thinking about the general case. Each one has cost
me. I'll go into the details in private email if you like.
Why in
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 08:28:19PM +, Michael Sokolov wrote:
How about we move this thread back to its original topic of blind and
buried vias, not arguments regarding whether or not PCB is part of gEDA.
I have some questions out of plain curiosity: completely aside from the
question of
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
I'm asking out of plain curiosity - I hope that I never have to make a
board with such vias as I've heard that they add a bit of sadomasochistic
flavor to board bringup/debug efforts - but then I guess some boards are
so cramped for space that you can't avoid them...
that the OMAP3430's Package-on-Package configuration
requires at least six layers to get all the signals out. Ugh.
OK, that explains the need for a lot of layers. But how does the need
for blind/buried vias arise?
MS
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:01:23 +, Michael Sokolov wrote:
I'm told that the OMAP3430's Package-on-Package configuration requires
at least six layers to get all the signals out. Ugh.
OK, that explains the need for a lot of layers. But how does the need
for blind/buried vias arise?
The
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:01:23 +, Michael Sokolov wrote:
I'm told that the OMAP3430's Package-on-Package configuration requires
at least six layers to get all the signals out. Ugh.
OK, that explains the need for a lot of layers. But how does the need
Bill Gatliff wrote:
I haven't come across a situation that required a buried via, so I can't
comment on that. Can't even guess, actually.
That's just a via that has no top or bottom layer impact, only the ones between
the layers it connects
are consumed. One benefit is the pad stack can
El mar, 29-09-2009 a las 09:38 -0500, Bill Gatliff escribió:
[snip]
The latest generation of BGA parts have so many pins on the package,
packed so tightly together, that it isn't possible to get all the
signals out of the chip in two layers and still have the traces large
enough to meet
I haven't come across a situation that required a buried via, so I can't
comment on that. Can't even guess, actually.
Boss says All those parts will find in that case, whats the problem
with routing the board?.
Problem is the Boss doesn't think traces take any physical space.
Think pocket
Buried vias allow more than one via in the same vertical zone possibly -- not
sure?
Yes, with one exception -- If blind and buried vias overlap the same
layers. For example, say you have an 8-layer board, and you have
blind vias from layers 1-4, and 5-8, and buried vias from 3-6, you are
not
Bob Paddock wrote:
For example, say you have an 8-layer board, and you have
blind vias from layers 1-4, and 5-8, and buried vias from 3-6, you are
not able to do that since the blind and buried involve the same
layers.
Wow, that means super dense is possible with a fab that is close
Wow, that means super dense is possible with a fab that is close tolerance...
blind vias 1-3, buried 4-5, blind vias 6-8, then maybe add two more layers
dedicated to gnd plane pwr plane for a total of ten layers for ultra dense
high speed boards like cell phones.
Worst I've heard of is 32
On Sep 27, 2009, at 5:16 AM, John Doty wrote:
Yes, pcb is not part of gEDA. It is a separate (older) development.
History aside (and like it or not) PCB *is* currently a de facto
member of the extended suite of gEDA programs.
Ignoring this, or claiming otherwise, is frankly absurd.
I
How about we move this thread back to its original topic of blind and
buried vias, not arguments regarding whether or not PCB is part of gEDA.
I have some questions out of plain curiosity: completely aside from the
question of how they ought to be handled by GNU PCB or any other PCB
design tool,
Can we put an end to this thread? How about this. PCB is part of gEDA.
I'm a developer for both. It is not a part of gaf (gschem and
friends) but it is the most popular reason for using gaf. You can argue
all you want about exactly how much a part of gEDA PCB is, but it is a
part. Some
On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Dan McMahill wrote:
Can we put an end to this thread? How about this. PCB is part of
gEDA.
I'm a developer for both. It is not a part of gaf (gschem and
friends) but it is the most popular reason for using gaf. You can
argue
all you want about
On Sep 26, 2009, at 3:07 PM, spuzzdawg wrote:
Jon,
You seem to consistently bring up this argument and I really think
it's to the detriment of the list. I'm sure that by now,
everyone on
this list is quite aware that in you're opinion, PCB is not part of
gEDA
Yes, pcb is
I was going to comment on one point, but once you start writing...
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 06:16:42AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
More useful and friendly to *what kind* of user? The kind that would
prefer spending an hour mousing around to solve a problem once, or 15
minutes writing a script
Guys:
And many who find shortcomings in gEDA don't want a toolkit.
I have very mixed feelings about that, though the above has mostly come
down on one side.
Is there a way to strike a balance like cURL did, which is to put a lot
of the guts of the code into libraries that can be used
Martin Maney wrote:
+1e6 - not that Scheme is my favorite scripting language, but if there
were a documented API it would be a viable option.
OT, but Gimp also uses Scheme.
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
b...@billgatliff.com
___
geda-user mailing
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ineiev ine...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/25/09, Bill Gatliff b...@billgatliff.com wrote:
With the onslaught of cool chips in BGA packages that's happening
lately, I'm hoping this task gets the attention it deserves. :)
Actually, have you tried patch 2011298
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Martin Maney wrote:
+1e6 - not that Scheme is my favorite scripting language, but if there
were a documented API it would be a viable option.
OT, but Gimp also uses Scheme.
Another app I've never yet attacked from the loadable
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 06:16 -0600, John Doty wrote:
People want prefabricated heavy symbols in a library, not considering
how massive the problem is.
That reminds me to a posting with no single reply:
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Jan-2009/msg00561.html
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:19:16 +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote:
That reminds me to a posting with no single reply:
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Jan-2009/msg00561.html
(provide a project based set of rules for attribute defaults)
IMHO, this is an excellent idea.
---(kaimartin)---
--
On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Guys:
And many who find shortcomings in gEDA don't want a toolkit.
I have very mixed feelings about that, though the above has mostly
come
down on one side.
Is there a way to strike a balance like cURL did, which is to put a
lot
On 9/27/09, Bob Paddock bob.padd...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ineiev ine...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, have you tried patch 2011298 (experimental feature
enhancement: blind and buried vias) in PCB SF tracker?
I just tried to give it a go, lack of blind and buried vias
Jon,
You seem to consistently bring up this argument and I really think
it's to the detriment of the list. I'm sure that by now, everyone on
this list is quite aware that in you're opinion, PCB is not part of
gEDA and not a single question should ever be asked about it. I'm not
Guys:
What's the current and planned state of support for blind and/or buried
vias in the gEDA system? I got a few questions on that at the Embedded
Systems Conference earlier this week...
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
b...@billgatliff.com
___
On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Guys:
What's the current and planned state of support for blind and/or
buried
vias in the gEDA system? I got a few questions on that at the
Embedded
Systems Conference earlier this week...
Well, of course that's a problem for the
Status: Not yet, want it, blue-sky plans available for rent.
It's part of the Upgrade of layer and design objects item in the
Linux Fund work, number 4 of 5 tasks.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
John Doty wrote:
On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Guys:
What's the current and planned state of support for blind and/or
buried
vias in the gEDA system? I got a few questions on that at the
Embedded
Systems Conference earlier this week...
Well, of course
DJ Delorie wrote:
Status: Not yet, want it, blue-sky plans available for rent.
It's part of the Upgrade of layer and design objects item in the
Linux Fund work, number 4 of 5 tasks.
With the onslaught of cool chips in BGA packages that's happening
lately, I'm hoping this task gets the
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:27:02 -0600, John Doty wrote:
but some (perhaps many) of us use gschem/gnetlist with other back ends.
Not so many. See the result of last years poll. 3 out of 32 confessed to
do the layout with PADS. The rest uses pcb.
---(kaimartin)---
--
Kai-Martin Knaak
John -
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:27:02AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
Remember, pcb is a separate tool, not part
of gEDA.
But it does fall under the gaf umbrella, and this is the
proper mailing lists for things pcb-related.
Probably very few pcb users capture schematics with anything
but
On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
John Doty wrote:
On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Guys:
What's the current and planned state of support for blind and/or
buried
vias in the gEDA system? I got a few questions on that at the
Embedded
Systems
On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:27:02 -0600, John Doty wrote:
but some (perhaps many) of us use gschem/gnetlist with other back
ends.
Not so many. See the result of last years poll. 3 out of 32
confessed to
do the layout with PADS. The
On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Larry Doolittle wrote:
John -
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:27:02AM -0600, John Doty wrote:
Remember, pcb is a separate tool, not part
of gEDA.
But it does fall under the gaf umbrella, and this is the
proper mailing lists for things pcb-related.
Probably very
39 matches
Mail list logo
