On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Mark Rages markra...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/19 Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk:
On Thursday 19 March 2009 21:58:59 Josh Jordan wrote:
I prefer to use actual pinouts in my schematics for two reasons: It helps
you with chip placement because naturally you
Am Donnerstag 19 März 2009 16.29:02 schrieb maillist.pe...@home.se:
Hello!
I have done some symbols (microprocessors etc.) using the djboxsym
tool and I have put the signals as they are located on the real chip
(i.e. correct pin number order).
I have now looked at some of your schematics
On Mar 19, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Mark Rages wrote:
2009/3/19 Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk:
On Thursday 19 March 2009 21:58:59 Josh Jordan wrote:
I prefer to use actual pinouts in my schematics for two reasons:
It helps
you with chip placement because naturally you will tend to place
Hello!
I have done some symbols (microprocessors etc.) using the djboxsym
tool and I have put the signals as they are located on the real chip
(i.e. correct pin number order).
I have now looked at some of your schematics and see that some of
you have grouped the signals more logical (i.e. PA0-7,
On Thursday 19 March 2009 15:29:02 maillist.pe...@home.se wrote:
This seems very handy when drawing the schematics but I wonder if
there are any problems with this method?
As I understand, as long as you define what chip type it is it will
be resolved and correctly translated once you
maillist.pe...@home.se
Subject: gEDA-user: Symbol style recommendations
To: geda-user@moria.seul.org
Cc: maillist.pe...@home.se
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 3:29 PM
-Inline Attachment Follows-
Hello!
I have done some symbols (microprocessors etc.) using
On Thursday 19 March 2009 21:58:59 Josh Jordan wrote:
I prefer to use actual pinouts in my schematics for two reasons: It helps
you with chip placement because naturally you will tend to place symbols
and lines to get the fewest line crossings. Going to layout after you have
already decided
Peter TB Brett wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. When I look at a schematic, I want to be
able
to quickly and easily work out what the circuit is designed to do, and having
the pins on my symbols arranged by function and bus offset rather than by
physical position helps a great
On Thursday 19 March 2009 22:28:14 Eric Brombaugh wrote:
Isn't it nice to have the option to do either?
Absolutely!
--
Peter Brett
Electronic Systems Engineer
Integral Informatics Ltd
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Thursday 19 March 2009 21:58:59 Josh Jordan wrote:
Going to layout after you have
already decided the best general position for parts makes it much easier.
We'll have to agree to disagree. When I look at a schematic, I want to be
able
to quickly and easily work out
. Not sure how slotting can work with that kind of division.
--- On Thu, 3/19/09, Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk wrote:
From: Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: Symbol style recommendations
To: gEDA user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org
Date: Thursday
Maybe you could slot big chips into io ports, a group of com pins,
and a group of power pins. Not sure how slotting can work with that
kind of division.
I do this all the time; no slotting, just make two symbols (one for
each subset of pins) and give them the same refdes.
You can see this
2009/3/19 Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk:
On Thursday 19 March 2009 21:58:59 Josh Jordan wrote:
I prefer to use actual pinouts in my schematics for two reasons: It helps
you with chip placement because naturally you will tend to place symbols
and lines to get the fewest line crossings.
13 matches
Mail list logo
