Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/01/26/10:47:40

X-Authentication-Warning: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Hierarchical design, pin number not needed
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:47:07 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <20160125193136 DOT c1297d2b8e17f291e2250a4c AT gmail DOT com> <9763429C-BEFE-443F-B4E7-EDB3BA4FF55D AT noqsi DOT com> <20160125223859 DOT 8f1120bf6f98c3ca60ee2b00 AT gmail DOT com> <8FA3D453-216B-489F-8862-EA004827B590 AT noqsi DOT com> <20160126021440 DOT f61e6e8be6bf4da5d2bafb25 AT gmail DOT com> <8DF71CDE-4E0D-481B-B240-99FAFE082328 AT noqsi DOT com> <20160126100402 DOT 55b76b26cdc848856d4f7ad5 AT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;

On Jan 26, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Nicklas Karlsson =
(nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] =
<geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

>>>>>>> Then using hierarchical design netlist complain if there are no =
pin numbers in symbol although in pcb it seems everything work OK =
without the pin numbers.
>>>>>> It doesn=92t work OK if you=92re not flattening hierarchy.
>>>>> The number is in the symbol but not in the schematic underneath. =
How is the number used? Or what purpose does it fulfill?
>>>> There=92s no way get get pin attributes or connections without the =
pin number in the back end. The hierarchy traversal in the core can =
=93cheat=94 because it completely removes the pin from the netlist =
structures. A hierarchical back end needs the pin, though, and therefore =
needs the pin number.
>>> So if hierarchical back end needs the pin how does it use it then =
there is only refdes and no pin number on sub sheet? Would it possible =
to add an enumerator in between instead?
>> It depends on the back end. The older SPICE back ends relate the =
numeric part of a spice-IO device=92s refdes to a pinseq attribute on =
the subcircuit symbol. My gnet-spice-noqsi imitates the gnetlist core =
behavior, relating the refdes on an io symbol to the a pinlabel on the =
subcircuit symbol. I don=92t know what other hierarchy-aware back ends =
> Since gnetlist and your gnet-spice-noqsi relate the refdes on an io =
symbol to the pinlabel there should be no need for pinnumber then using =
these backends since the number is not used.

Gnetlist represents connections to nets as (refdes pinnumber). Without a =
pinnumber, there is no way to determine if a pin is connected to a net.

Gnetlist represents connections to packages as (pinnumber . netname). =
Without a pinnumber, there is no way for a pin on a package to be =

Gnetlist looks up pin attributes by pinnumber or pinseq. Without one of =
those, you can=92t get pin attributes. If I was grumpy today, I might =
argue that pinseq is a flawed concept.

In short, pinnumber is the attribute that generally identifies pins for =
a variety of purposes. Back ends need it.

> Nicklas Karlsson

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
jpd AT noqsi DOT com

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Comment: GPGTools -



- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019