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=oAJdYh7XmbOKUqZAfGXl7XtjieoTfhWLGZdp7kvPjyc=; b=zIXqgxZD5YKIiJYdq6FeDohSSVK2yLjO2CDVrBnubO1vDF9HvP1KQ6XHl11N9PlYTa 6I4oTKUy69qVw/57zONHeInjhZ4+T4AtuZkmTlfCeFsxE7w7HqhwYDWr7kTAeuK/Yfxq ASZG70yhGuZv90dG4RuHDPnE1Vak4jYchgopsA1njMh9Uo/OxZ/Dzxgt4pRXGapmkZM5 EqM9WZYjm30311+WiqoBoYjGGPiJaXM+fhnQsuD/BztEknnGzIc4dWhiZCP9+v3NPuHr t47bC+zd3qACIYUh3sbX0PfJUjfz798qj2NJiYWmR6Forno7Dkd1GhcbXnqws8mdeEMn Fkqw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.39.195 with SMTP id r3mr164922wik.57.1445709425032; Sat, 24 Oct 2015 10:57:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201510240510.t9O5AvSi019180@envy.delorie.com> References: <20151018204010 DOT 9cce6a231dcc296256e187bd AT gmail DOT com> <201510181843 DOT t9IIhmWo025346 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20151018234424 DOT c0551dad9bef0859130239d9 AT gmail DOT com> <36B94694-F2AC-4A75-A8EB-40A1CE9A534C AT noqsi DOT com> <201510182225 DOT t9IMPkxK032763 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20151019003814 DOT f62620bf0fec77e65104c105 AT gmail DOT com> <201510190242 DOT t9J2gl7w009345 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20151019092555 DOT 46eed4540c2d2044bbeab878 AT gmail DOT com> <1A419AED-FCCA-4B1F-8589-912435534E2E AT noqsi DOT com> <201510191647 DOT t9JGlu4j024585 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <041FF42A-691F-4E6B-9DEB-8C6B3C2F3E53 AT noqsi DOT com> <201510191850 DOT t9JIop8Y029095 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201510192055 DOT t9JKt2o6005861 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <1E816300-E31E-4B85-B51D-7EAEC5A466BF AT noqsi DOT com> <201510192110 DOT t9JLAFKG007281 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201510192340 DOT t9JNeo6n020302 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201510240510 DOT t9O5AvSi019180 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 09:57:04 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Pin mapping (separate symbols from mappings) From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c24cc6ba43da0522dd7478 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 --001a11c24cc6ba43da0522dd7478 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:10 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > IIRC at the moment it give NO WARNING for duplicate refdes, which is just > > inexcusable. To be fair you can blame this on pcb but still... > > It's common to break large chips (like MCUs) into separate symbols to > manage them better, which means that a duplicate refdes is allowed (in > fact, required) in those cases. > If you stop using separate pages, you'll stop wanting to do that. I use beaglebone symbols, they are large and square but so what? > What should not be allowed is duplicate pins, module how slotting is > implemented. The problem I forsee is that "duplicate pins" is a > problem that will be solved in the netlister *if* slotting is moved > out of gschem, resulting in duplicates being allowed in gschem, > resulting in ambiguity. > > So there's three cases: > > 1. One symbol to one component, refdes should be unique, no problem. > > 2. Many symbols to one component (MCU), refdes must be same but pins > should be unique. > One way would be to require symbols that want to do this to have a "part_of=something_real" attribute. They could then work with warning on. Warning could be enabled by default, and parts still portable to instances with the default behavior. > 3. Many symbols to one component (SLOTTING), refdes and pins may be be > same or unique depending on how slotting is implemented. > Hmm, since my inclination here is to have Q1 refer to a particular transistor rather than a part, I guess I have to acknowledge inconsistency. In practice I've avoided slotting entirely out of fear and just made e.g. multi-amp symbols when needed. To be honest I can't imagine how to make slotting and subcircs work together gracefully. > > Schematic pages except for subcircs are obsolete IMO, > > I use separate pages because I often implement subcircuits separately > for testing. For example, I might fab just the power supply. In my > powermeter board, 15 of the 16 channel circuits were implemented with > a script that copied the first channel's page. Same here. My point was that when you do subcirc pages they get their own refdes space, so the fact that gschem can't check for inter-page uniqueness isn't relevant. > > If you need to print your schematics it's because your CAD sucks > > somehow. > > Or because you want to debug and the bench doesn't have its own > monitor. Or because you're writing an article and need the schematic > Time for a new bench :) --001a11c24cc6ba43da0522dd7478 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:10 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> IIRC at the moment it give NO WARNING for duplicate refdes, which is j= ust
> inexcusable.=C2=A0 To be fair you can blame this on pcb but still...
It's common to break large chips (like MCUs) into separate symbo= ls to
manage them better, which means that a duplicate refdes is allowed (in
fact, required) in those cases.

If you stop using separate pages, you'll stop wanting to do that.= =C2=A0 I use beaglebone symbols, they are large and square but so what?
=C2=A0
What should not be allowed is duplicate pins, module how slotting is
implemented.=C2=A0 The problem I forsee is that "duplicate pins" = is a
problem that will be solved in the netlister *if* slotting is moved
out of gschem, resulting in duplicates being allowed in gschem,
resulting in ambiguity.

So there's three cases:

1. One symbol to one component, refdes should be unique, no problem.

2. Many symbols to one component (MCU), refdes must be same but pins
=C2=A0 =C2=A0should be unique.

One way would be to require symbols that want to do this to have a "= ;part_of=3Dsomething_real" attribute.=C2=A0 They could then work with = warning on.=C2=A0 Warning could be enabled by default, and parts still port= able to instances with the default behavior.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
3. Many symbols to one component (SLOTTING), refdes and pins may be be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0same or unique depending on how slotting is implemented.

Hmm, since my inclination here is= to have Q1 refer to a particular transistor rather than a part, I guess I = have to acknowledge inconsistency.
In practice I'v= e avoided slotting entirely out of fear and just made e.g. multi-amp symbol= s when needed.=C2=A0 To be honest I can't imagine how to make slotting = and subcircs work together gracefully.
=C2=A0
> Schematic pages except for subcircs are obsolete IMO,

I use separate pages because I often implement subcircuits separatel= y
for testing.=C2=A0 For example, I might fab just the power supply.=C2=A0 In= my
powermeter board, 15 of the 16 channel circuits were implemented with
a script that copied the first channel's page.

Same here.=C2=A0 My point was that when you do subcirc p= ages they get their own refdes space, so the fact that gschem can't che= ck for inter-page uniqueness isn't relevant.
=C2=A0
> If you need to print your schematics it's because your CAD sucks > somehow.

Or because you want to debug and the bench doesn't have its own<= br> monitor.=C2=A0 Or because you're writing an article and need the schema= tic

Time for a new bench :)<= /div>
=C2=A0

--001a11c24cc6ba43da0522dd7478--