Mail Archives: geda-user/2014/07/06/11:05:48
On 07/05/2014 10:16 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> The peninsulas neck down to less than the minimum copper width rule.
> I typically expand the pad clearances until such necks vanish.
On this footprint that would be slightly annoying, although workable. I
did consider doing that.
>> Third, is it legal to specify zero-width Pad[] elements in a footprint,
>> and assign clearance values, in order to composite some clearance into
>> the footprint?
> I think this is fine, although perhaps a tiny non-zero width might be
> needed. I don't know if these cause outputs in the gerber file,
> though, so be careful.
Is there a reliable way to validate that zero-width pads are usable? I
was thinking that this might be a good way to deal with the gang mask
problem as well.
I'm thinking that a reasonable way to specify clearance/mask features
that don't have associated copper is:
1. Draw a Pad[] with zero width, but with clearance/mask set create
desired relief.
2. Give the Pad[] a pin number that is *not* used in the part, that way
it will not show up in the netlist and cause rat/routing/connectivity
confusion.
- Raw text -