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=uv65qBPnFVW4yBfZ1gIARirM6Wz6yNSJO9NHRQm+71k=; b=faqYc0j/IKQiDygW2weLNegBGv5LNotml3BiOywc2+PyuXnoAAZfUq/jfrP1T37HRn wMKK5NYNz0+tuO4hlAe+uJs/D1BOpz5EtPGdx8o9bZ8EWbPi2Fp5h7RPNPUG8jJxGr5R QZ1sgeej4udiH42Fr77q45wlNR/EHqU/dAC4Stl2nZdbN/zKlj2LjT5rxsriB0lLhme+ t4rUJWi3y9L7oMW60Gb7U649m3RtfkrjbSJFX6H1Mykn9nNf5gP1pDYuIVS8hmb2wT5j lFmIyFgLLjMoc4u1+8vLKgUy5/NGoIsMVM6UwxS4p/kn+d0Ql7c58vNFZCoomP7Kt6q7 00Iw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.54.132 with SMTP id j4mr10409501lbp.84.1441030176044; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:09:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201508301802 DOT t7UI2twS031311 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201508310341 DOT t7V3fcfh022966 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:09:35 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] back annotation proposal (RFC) From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:41 AM, wrote: > > > On Sun, 30 Aug 2015, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> >>> That makes a lot of sense for the netlist but what if you change a >>> footprint? I think there should be another tool that you run in >>> parallel to gnetlist to handle that. >> >> >> I assume a much more intelligent netlister. >> >> The netlister maps what it knows about each symbol to a list of >> candidate options for "heavifiing" the symbol into a full component. >> One of these options is the package, and once you somehow choose a >> package, there's one or more footprints that go with it. >> >> Part of my idea is that pcb takes all the choices it knows about and >> gives them to the netlister, so that the netlister can use that to >> narrow down the options it's left with after dealing with the >> constraints in the symbol. >> >> I.e. if you have a generic AND gate symbol, there's lot of options for >> the netlister. But if this is a future iteration, pcb might already >> know that you picked a 74ALS00 in a SDIP-14 package with the SDIP14M >> footprint. It can tell the netlister this when it does an >> update-import. It can also tell the netlister what pin mappings were >> used. >> >> If the information in pcb is no longer valid for the device (i.e. you >> changed a 2-in AND to a 3-in AND), then the netlister would discard >> pcb's choices and start fresh. >> >> So, there's a lot of back-annotation information being sent from pcb >> to the netlister, which lets you do package, gate, and pin swapping in >> pcb, but none of it ends up back in gschem unless you do something >> specific to make that happen. >> > > I generally like most of this. I have some constraints, tho: your idea needs > massive gnetlist backend coding, which means a lot of scheme coding. I am > not up to that and I have no contributor willing to do that. (Your idea also > requires much more support in pcb-rnd, but I'm fine with that part.) Unless > my contributor-problem gets solved, I will probably need to go for a simpler > solution even if that is less generic. This might be a good place to throw GPMI in again. Like I have said in other threads scheme needs to be phased out. > Regards, > > Igor2 -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/