www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
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=Qv10zyDsiwbbWMVg6EL7dvFDbQrAWtnSVwKwJKfdStQ=; | |
b=YGWv5rVuCQx18KfIzuNnsjCm0KeoZdttxklJ1vOxQFuohy0vU87Vp7dw+lpIkhxXpv | |
CVwDTLIo2BAkseGaUhcryR91MU4HSrDqtiigqEeS+kscSOEmLD8QhWkduRBaTf6JIl10 | |
T8RZimWCWvyAT4Jl46NS3dAuM/iEfLOM4uNdu8d+L9GI9fVfSaTX9CQdl935vMGXOxIV | |
EDGCRj4Yq17rv14/WglMlfOc5I3HJ+AvNRXQknUpqB3yS+JxNRD5MwdlHMkcMKM+pavA | |
GiNHv0y7OGzNjJU5SuHSYz0budYeQ6TG9wHfTwodYIzEw4ZAHaT0Vy0h287dTith2DKE | |
tslg== | |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Received: | by 10.112.149.68 with SMTP id ty4mr9385632lbb.74.1442170562492; |
Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:56:02 -0700 (PDT) | |
In-Reply-To: | <201509131840.t8DIecSf029011@envy.delorie.com> |
References: | <5D1C97FB-F049-4ABB-90E4-F2108647A111 AT noqsi DOT com> |
<201509131840 DOT t8DIecSf029011 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> | |
Date: | Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:56:02 +0000 |
Message-ID: | <CAM2RGhRGeopE9e-_C3pjjurj258U_7BiBNh-qMfiKUXv_gwBCA@mail.gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] RFC: pin attribute remapping |
From: | "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie 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 |
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 6:40 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote: > >> The second form allows swapping of pins between packages. > > Is this a general form of swapping gates between packages? Like > beween 7400's? I think I fall in the same category as DJ here. I don't understand what problem this is intended to solve. > While considering the pin/gate swapping problem, I did encounter one > case where "refdes" wasn't globally persistent enough: if you have two > 7400's and you swap gates between them, the "refdes" in the schematic > is no longer accurate, and should be changed to reflect the swap. > But, the refdes is what you're using to globally identify "this > symbol" in the schematic. > > Aside from assigning GUIDs to each symbol as they're instantiated, I > don't have a good solution to this. > > Using a page in a heirarchy, where a gate is swapped between devices > in one instance within the heirarchy but not another causes even more > problems, because there is now no "one schematic" that can reflect the > as-built. (swapping pins differently in instances is a similar but > smaller problem) > > I think it's possible to solve these in a post-flattened world, since > pcb could know what it did relative to the flattened netlist, although > what to print for the refdes might get confusing (if it isn't already > with heirarchy ;). It's moving those changes back to an as-built that > retains the heirarchical format that's tricky. Annotation an as-built > *might* require a shared page to be separately instantiated for each > use in the heirarchy. -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |