Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/06/12/13:15:30
> On Jun 12, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Russell Nelson (russnelson AT gmail DOT com) <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
> The problem there is that you could have an "any pin" relationship (as in your example), or an "all pins" relationship as in this example: the 75441 quad H-bridge has four ground pins which are also heat sinks, and which all should be connected to a nice fat ground plane.
Indeed. And the standard approach in that case is to include all the pin numbers and be explicit in the schematic, "Yea verily, connect each and every one of these pins to ground."
(And that also works for the case of using internally connected pins as a jumper. 'Not recommending that, just pointing out the flexibility.)
But in my case I have the two shield pins on the pot.
One approach would be to include the two shield pins, 4 and 5, in the schematic symbol, and then I could back-annotate which pin that I actually connected. But man, that seems excessive. And confusing.
My current approach, giving the shield pins the same pin number in the footprint, isn't bad, the rats nest just complains about missing connections. And I can add the connections, it's not holding me up. But I'm wondering if there's an approach that's more preferable, that's more in line with the internals.
-- Don
--
Don Tillman
Palo Alto, California
don AT till DOT com
http://www.till.com
- Raw text -