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=cYVPcu6VLutLDf/byYFl7RPu8VtaR78WCFJoKW9Ob+g=; b=WRfYxpR551Q2nWR2nq+jMyG3dBxNbkAdJ3TxloWa+wjjIsqJ/mP+gnZyy1vj8PHlmd bF06kKmKfwET67FwWfwVbfINiD1bvPlq+xISTTNeVFTvWwZu+wNgb7omouipYkgGtw4K Hsoczk3sGdjqbm35ZCPHJMgjuLVfqfdjfIEu8WQlrluc2eurqlezxX/TuW1D2aQUp2eH UMAL1ArbuDWGgn6vJlDvDcs6FgCvJxJPmpsvPlWe6NRY/Iqh6cKauJxQoAW/ehN6RZp2 ibaMg+UYGy8Q4wi8yUL+i2vUI/bbtRwZiaxOyEkZgVOxGVLd4C654q0vDVQ4clx7jBPs 9C7w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.124.164 with SMTP id mj4mr16785119lbb.3.1436480611432; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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 22:23:31 +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, Evan Foss wrote: > 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? There are a lot of situations like this where I want something that uses a rendering of the schematic but not the ability to edit it. -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/