www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/12/29/12:34:36

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
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 <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
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: <CAJXU7q_3XwthnN_8mp7B+-ShHeK+=7J=54ZavKBUG3S3bSKp2A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CANEvwqiM7CKG+WpDRpG4L=HsmSEZ32=CBDyUhuk3ks-SNedL2Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <43CC8F96-6452-40FA-9DFB-E0983721C19C AT noqsi DOT com> <CAGde_xPX8FB57SR-siOf5Udien1H04VVLd4fEFmJJDn30U4MvQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <60951D11-68FB-4184-910F-A201B7C2D079 AT noqsi DOT com> <20151229092523 DOT e1209f12e48386ec92457dee AT gmail DOT com> <CAGde_xN=BKihkKAkSWAOEuA5EYb9F8Sa_BBWwWdQc1fOrwkB2w AT mail DOT 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

--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] =
<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
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=EMPS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_5846E5C0-600B-4324-9D03-5D29FC9CED3C--

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019