X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=a4Nv52yB+qQypWXdLDvpkNA7v0yhFD4s8cvTmDEJe3k=; b=XeUfQDhGhHRmSo+ZQ9otMmngjxupTIRxCi+hvFu1QMT/bOL1eZxbnoBiFCG7cCidXT fjBpij4uqe9c4U41vCaZMowUZkNtbDEfF5Z5MQxIwKZYShBdzzK+gjYkgEApIzTBLPa6 NhZJPaydIQtJQzhV7XHNXRGmJEuIw4qQWiNowB6skDFnxcr1Fm4mCZROANhLo36lOo4M R4mvupg+Hb8+NOpRvMYf82wJMDKzU7TZ5sfb+uOaWGXB2gPNO5eGg0zqbr0Uzono+JIs Hs1o2qCXUyaOp9AEfl/u8AICbuakJJcodIzLpgI6eliNrJ+fJfEa4Ss5TSVUDxJYTdiQ c7Ag== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.161.197 with SMTP id xu5mr16826624lbb.69.1436480533179; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:22:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201507092127.t69LRHRC001744@envy.delorie.com> References: <559E86A4 DOT 3040109 AT ecosensory DOT com> <201507091843 DOT t69IhGF6028321 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <6392CE1A-AFA0-4D62-979C-3F35786422BD AT noqsi DOT com> <201507092127 DOT t69LRHRC001744 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 22:22:13 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Back annotation From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 7/9/15, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> #3 is certainly growing on me. I find myself dealing with multiple >> layout contractors, and one of them wants footprint names like >> "BGA484C100P22X22_2300X2300X260". I don't think those belong in the >> schematics, and the others are happy with "BGA484". So, it's a >> flow-dependent mapping. > > That idea was a side-effect of my "component database" blue-sky. We really > want *three* main tools: > > * schematic capture (gschem) > * mapping to a backend (netlister + component_db + project_ruleset) > * backend (pcb/sim/etc) > > The mapping would map symbolic information (pins A,B,Y, value, etc) to > physical information (package-specific pinouts, simulation models, > etc) based on whatever relevent local rules apply. Most of this info > is what's back-annotated anyway, but the backend can provide its > as-built data to the netlister on the fly, to merge with new schematic > info. > > It's also a solution to the transistor problem, because the > information that's moved out of the schematic is the same information > that causes the problem in the first place. > > And by swapping the db/rules you get to target different backends with > the same schematics. > > One of the "backends" could be an annotated as-built schematic set too :-) > > /me wonders how this will work with heriarchical "symbols" feeding > ruleset attributes to subcircuits... How do you prompt the user for the information in a way that is not painfully breaking their flow. Perhaps if you back-annotate while using subcircuits it should present you with two options side by side? -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/