X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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=WwNJHcgb5wctuFuMCmuIBUd7Vi+CuxWMe2AHzvtmquc=;
	b=OP8+XtyEZ31Ab7dDnm0KheDtkr+J/lO8/SM9T5IsUZruh1rFyNIqGdVocC2oc/FZW2
	NQ3gzKptDsc8nrjERG62dvUjOL8+kImZVio2l1Qb7AhpjCJF9pAyfde76SZb/BcA/RIn
	9beCMuVDwSX27OeayCB/0y2rUtngIgclk7hSmPEf0Z+57dLY8MIbDXQaqM/oDArJ1sgR
	8U4ZuQWHSTOAkFdUmI+6i678Dgj9y4XZ2X7F0xKSbVBk2o26nfT9MVum0eunNcRciRzX
	0muUpGsirEJQrr92ZQ0aW2BJ9oEbUWt5nOxwEnw+QrN1alNYovjJl6tML5Zvf0Do1nNf
	4miQ==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.112.7.36 with SMTP id g4mr3466137lba.43.1406141205417; Wed,
	23 Jul 2014 11:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<53CFC7DA.1090500@ecosensory.com>
References:	<jql5oeoex9l7r932tnwtp2i5 DOT 1404908642063 AT email DOT android DOT com>
	<53C5DDD4 DOT 404 AT ecosensory DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhTH+K91JkhakxYgW5UZVWqGZ18zRMwkjvxjJRoCUWCBzA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<53CFC7DA DOT 1090500 AT ecosensory DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:46:45 -0400
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhSDhodNzBn5wh3=N5K-uujsOe4HXyY2HeWJ91L8bUtezA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Re: Layers and footprints
From:	Evan Foss <evanfoss AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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

Having never done chip design I could be wrong in the following line
of thought but I want to understand this. That still sounds more like
a netlisting issue to me. I should think the subcircuit really just
needs some special tag on it's page that will indicate the Rx, Cx and
other reference designators will be altered after netlisting &
tessellation on the layout.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM, John Griessen <john AT ecosensory DOT com> wrote:
> On 07/23/2014 01:18 AM, Evan Foss wrote:
>>
>> John thing that worries me is the alteration of gschem. Other than
>> adding another label for marking a 3D model along with the footprint
>> what alteration is really needed from gschem?
>
>
> Some way for it to handle symbols just as it handles subschematics
> the way verilog or verilog-ams does.  Then you have hierarchy
> with the ability to reuse modules even if they have the same name.
> It's a huge change.  Not likely to happen at all unless a need is perceived.
>
> The kinds of reasons for this would be using gschem in chip design.
> Next would be for large scale planar circuits of printed electronics
> where you are using verilog and verilog-ams to model the lowlevel function
> of layout cells that can be repeated hundreds of times as part of a
> circuit.  For when we can layout printed resistors, caps, diodes,
> transistors,
> inductors -- not just wire -- and fabbed for cheap.
>
> Could take a while.



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -