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
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 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/