X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-TCPREMOTEIP: 207.224.51.38 X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5846E5C0-600B-4324-9D03-5D29FC9CED3C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: [geda-user] Project leadership (generic, buses) X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: John Doty In-Reply-To: <20151229150930.40972e4fe443a77295542d6b@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:33:54 -0700 Message-Id: <30287B14-646E-410C-9D93-0B601C33F6C8@noqsi.com> References:

<43CC8F96-6452-40FA-9DFB-E0983721C19C AT noqsi DOT com> <60951D11-68FB-4184-910F-A201B7C2D079 AT noqsi DOT com> <20151229092523 DOT e1209f12e48386ec92457dee AT gmail DOT com> <8A714952-9F47-41B2-861E-5A152F063CB5 AT noqsi DOT com> <20151229150930 DOT 40972e4fe443a77295542d6b 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 Precedence: bulk --Apple-Mail=_5846E5C0-600B-4324-9D03-5D29FC9CED3C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Dec 29, 2015, at 7:09 AM, Nicklas Karlsson = (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] = wrote: >>> In my view it is only generic if all backends do exactly the same = text >>> processing and use exactly the same attribute names. I don't think >>> that is generic enough. But I may be wrong. >>=20 >> That leads you into same very difficult corners, since different = downstream tools have different models of what a circuit is. >>=20 >> John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. >> http://www.noqsi.com/ >> jpd AT noqsi DOT com >=20 > Backends: > Spice --> netlist, map symbol pins to electrical model? > circuit board --> netlist, map symbol pins to footprint pins, BOM > cables between circuit boards --> Schematic, BOM, cable thicknesses or = types A footprint is much like a SPICE model to a netlister: a set of ports = that connect to nets. But there are fiddly details. SPICE is = hierarchical, but most printed circuit layout systems aren=92t. = Published SPICE models often reflect single slots, not complete = packages. SPICE can put many more parameters on a component than you = normally do for PCB layout. The electrical model for a physical = component may either be an elementary device or a subcircuit. Should a a = connector model be a subcircuit instance, a subcircuit declaration, or a = collection of test points? So, it isn=92t simply a matter of having =93exactly the same text = processing=94. Until I wrote gnet-spice-noqsi, it wasn=92t possible to = have a complicated schematic that was useful for both layout and = simulation. It=92s still a fair amount of extra work in symbol = preparation. > ASIC --> ? For my mixed-signal ASIC work I export SPICE. The layout contractor can = take that as inputs. My SPICE netlists are hierarchical and may be = simulated without modification: just add stimuli on top and process = models on the bottom. The layout contractor can create =93parameter = extracted=94 SPICE netlists at any hierarchical level from the physical = layout with identical interfaces to my schematic-derived netlists for = verification. This works very smoothly with geda-gaf and ngspice. In some ways, to a = schematic designer, it is the easiest and most rigorous gEDA flow I = know. > Verilog --> ? > VDHL --> Connection of blocks is this structural VHDL? For ASIC, these are similar to SPICE, I believe. In general, simulation = to layout flows are hierarchical and ultimately based on the structural = subset of the simulation language. But even in SPICE, you can decide to = model a subcircuit behaviorally, and elementary models are always = behavioral. So before layout, you may keep the option of simulating some = blocks behaviorally for efficiency. FPGA is similar: structural at high level, behavioral at low, but the = boundary is more complicated. After having written a makefile back end for gnetlist, I wonder about = translating some sort of diagram into behavioral HDL code. The problems = appear similar. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ jpd AT noqsi DOT com --Apple-Mail=_5846E5C0-600B-4324-9D03-5D29FC9CED3C Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWgsQCAAoJEF1Aj/0UKykRoVUP/iFuw1GdP7avGcE1uSfyjk/e T7BGjxzcxk80YBA30McY3iHchPwpD7eazUQYAo07dCPhGXTvOj0sb7CtIo1Npg9R s5d0/EFdd/q8bCwgVR1f6lbYuq25td9YBX7YLkGHXCLYV+kwNZ1bBIrZvoxkqLDp fFvsOBVfh6hmXhfESEVGCP8zBlGj5uG/SEYbefhI62awaV0Cp9HzcY9CBKIF57Xo NOgx1y9+BKe//LIZQV2RwhEhV6bmTn7Y5S5L9dmt4xs/cOpTDAaKgWPIZUGTXF2L k78ZVQ28pqTRTFPwmtlTn0iBN/8arobEm/R6Ay/ceLimQUP+ZgRfhDgT0Rcrmeh/ vr4Q4EGVio3kj7N7ssTPRAi8CIp+pr05FKDahpdned4tMAGlA71YJ6F3V1++WAJ4 49Ef1ULXVuoLCRV+47XguJb/Ko61qrbpsYUiHN349+gO9Zdm4Qbu4SDPOrWu5Zf7 PTWX3edgoVx5bWzGOJtuEMCyc6oFkjFUv5NNccvONZdrnMeEelTVHhyFDjMc4n1J x1bRTDOe7nUdbQhQbJW3Upmysopn5hLc2WmcWdB7BgRyjjq7/KgiGy5Bd3OdsWk1 FVMvZzsPzu3emrapcy3y/sNsDGPuhU+DXD2rQo9hUtvNUP4PWKFzapIwM9VZqyG+ ytansCjEZk/EOoRpwzKC =EMPS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5846E5C0-600B-4324-9D03-5D29FC9CED3C--