X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-help-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-help AT delorie DOT com Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 13:00:32 +0100 (CET) From: Roland Lutz To: "Klaus Rudolph (lts-rudolph AT gmx DOT de) [via geda-help AT delorie DOT com]" Subject: Re: [geda-help] using net names on multiple sub schematics used by single symbol In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <3e21c34b-571c-8762-7e68-f096bcf10a37 AT gmx DOT de> <20201209082005 DOT 8890C8512092 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Reply-To: geda-help AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-help AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sat, 12 Dec 2020, Klaus Rudolph (lts-rudolph AT gmx DOT de) [via geda-help AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >> That's still valid, but I agree that it would be a good idea to update >> these resources to use the newer convention. > > ... and maybe add a "deprecated" warning while processing these kind of > schematics? Using refdes= for ports isn't deprecated because there are some things which can't be achieved with a portname= attribute, like having a component be a port in some situations and a connector in others. > No! I want an explicit access on the namespace. Every level of hierarchy > should be seen as local, but each of these level should be in some way > *explicit* addressable but giving additional information in some syntax > to the name of the net. Something like net=# or > "net=# " whatever syntax you like. But that's exactly what I/O ports are for! So you want to have an "invisible pin" on the subschematic symbol which connects to a named net, and an "invisible port symbol" inside the subschematic which connects the port to a local net? > But it would be nice if buses can be used as nets. Connecting them via a > element ( maybe a pin ) may connect the whole bus to the sub schematic. > If you have a design with some address and data bus and you can simply > connect all your sub schematic peripherals with the pins would be nice. > I am currently did not have such jobs to realize, but it looks "natural" > to me. I have already implemented that as part of my (at the time) experimental netlister features, but I haven't merged it yet, mostly because of different conflicting conventions for pin numbering. What pin numbering scheme do you use? Roland