X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Message-ID: <1382903240.28349.14.camel@pcjc2lap>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Merging ICs and nets with gsch2pcb
From: Peter Clifton <pcjc2 AT cam DOT ac DOT uk>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 19:47:20 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CANhYM9HzRHXgw3yyfz44f3xH7Y_N+dWoVujJdPv55mNKaV-V4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CANhYM9F_CxrD4yL=rgg76m1f9sL29wNNjNn3KjYZ5xbADBQBtw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	 <1382900899 DOT 22421 DOT 6 DOT camel AT pcjc2lap>
	 <CANhYM9HzRHXgw3yyfz44f3xH7Y_N+dWoVujJdPv55mNKaV-V4A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4-0ubuntu1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 23:50 +0430, James Jackson wrote:

>         IMO, not explicitly calling out the power connections is a
>         mistake, just
>         like using symbol embedded (hidden) power-nets on components
>         is.
> 
> 
> Ah, I do explicitly call them out, but in a separate location from the
> functional use of the part. This means my design isn't cluttered with
> power rail decoupling stuff, however there is a sheet that is full of
> only that kind of stuff.

That is a fine way of doing things, and one I use myself. What I
referred to previously was Leaving the GND and VCC connections to be
made by "net=GND:7" "net=VCC:14" attributes hidden inside a symbol. That
method is asking for trouble in modern designs with multiple power
rails.

[snip]
> 
> I've done this with symbols rather than subcircuits - for example, two
> symbols for an op amp, one with only the functional pins, and one with
> only the power pins. The former exists on a 'process' schematic, the
> latter on my power schematic.

Again, absolutely fine, I was just thinking out loud how it might (or
might not) work for symbols which instantiate parts of the hierarchy.

gschem + gnetlist are pretty dumb tools, and you could "probably" split
different parts of a sub-circuit into multiple pages, then instantiate
them with different symbols - assuming you gave both the same refdes.

I vaguely recall it was me who added support for leaving the refdes=
attribute missing to allow "hierarchy" without the name prefix.

Regards,


-- 
Peter Clifton <peter DOT clifton AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk>

Clifton Electronics