On 28.06.2017 15:23, hauptmech wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by supporting busses. Aren't they already
> supported with the current matching code?
I mean recognizing net names such as BUS_LINE_P0/BUS_LINE_N0 (with the
index as the last character).
Differential bus routing might happen in
I'm not sure what you mean by supporting busses. Aren't they already
supported with the current matching code?
Or do you mean routing a bus of pairs in a single action?
On 29/06/17 00:53, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
On 28.06.2017 05:23, hauptmech wrote:
Are there any issues with matching "P"
On 28.06.2017 05:23, hauptmech wrote:
> Are there any issues with matching "P" and "N" instead of "_P" and "_N"
> for the differential pair suffix matcher? I have an existing design with
> the former convention. Matching the single letters will also correctly
> match the "_P" style suffix.
>
> If
Are there any issues with matching "P" and "N" instead of "_P" and "_N"
for the differential pair suffix matcher? I have an existing design with
the former convention. Matching the single letters will also correctly
match the "_P" style suffix.
If the user selects a net that is not a
4 matches
Mail list logo
