X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Message-ID: <59B80209.7000104@xs4all.nl> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 17:49:29 +0200 From: "Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110429 Fedora/2.0.14-1.fc13 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] gshem 1.8.2 Bug? Slotting fails for a custom BPX85 photo-transistor array References: <7b205135-7b91-e8f0-a5d8-efc4cb0b787d AT zen DOT co DOT uk> <01968e6b-14de-7e0e-bcbd-93b35a17a6c7 AT zen DOT co DOT uk> In-Reply-To: <01968e6b-14de-7e0e-bcbd-93b35a17a6c7@zen.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfFHlvV1/7ijFkJgYrzyp5xWZBqhxv6nhfz/l+pntpRDYlpcQOQsZY808uFxQPYRsUVxoQZj/tY1R/LpRq0wi71Qr3m0i9dV7cQ02N2GtVSWGXVJShYlK s5LjcBINjKa1ZRSNg7C6ENx/YgBIehxEk5ka2M0ZSeD96446Z5EW2OcbJ+ypi7nwSyzmskPbDlPUfg== Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Barry Jackson (zen25000 AT zen DOT co DOT uk) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > On 12/09/17 13:51, Stephan Böttcher wrote: >> "Barry Jackson (zen25000 AT zen DOT co DOT uk) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" >> writes: >> >>> I have created BPX85.sym and BPX85.fp for a narrow DIL package that >>> holds 5 two terminal photo-transistors for which I used slotting. >>> I guess it would be a DIL10-200 (if there is such an item) >>> >>> I adopted the conventional pin numbering for a DIL package but >>> slotting fails as the pins for each internal device are not >>> sequential, but across the package. >>> >>> The slotdefs are: >>> 1:1,10 >>> 2:2,9 >>> 3:3,8 >>> 4:4,7 >>> 5:5,6 >>> >>> Pins 1..5 are slotted correctly, however pins 6..10 are ignored and >>> left at the default of 10 as in the symbol. >>> >>> I spoke to agaran on irc #geda who suggested that this is a bug in >>> gschem. >>> >>> I am attaching the symbol and footprint files in the hope that these >>> will assist in debugging. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Barry >>> >>> v 20130925 2 >>> L 600 800 600 200 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 900 800 600 500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 600 500 900 200 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 800 400 900 200 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 700 300 900 200 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 300 600 500 600 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 300 400 500 400 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 400 700 500 600 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 400 500 500 600 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 400 500 500 400 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> L 500 400 400 300 3 0 0 0 -1 -1 >>> P 900 0 900 200 1 0 0 >>> { >>> T 1000 -200 5 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> pinseq=1 >>> T 1000 -400 5 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> pintype=oe >>> T 600 0 5 10 1 1 0 0 1 >>> pinnumber=1 >>> T 1000 0 5 10 1 1 0 0 1 >>> pinlabel=e >>> } >>> T 100 1600 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> device=BPX85 >>> T 200 -200 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> refdes=Q? >>> T 0 500 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> numslots=5 >>> T 500 100 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> slotdef=1:1,10 >>> T 500 -200 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> slotdef=2:2,9 >>> T 600 295 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> slotdef=3:3,8 >>> T 600 95 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> slotdef=4:4,7 >>> T 600 -105 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> slotdef=5:5,6 >>> T 255 300 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> description=opto transistor array >>> T 1200 600 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> slot=1 >>> P 900 1000 900 800 1 0 0 >>> { >>> T 900 1000 5 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> pintype=oc >>> T 955 1000 5 10 1 1 180 6 1 >>> pinlabel=c >>> T 805 1050 5 10 1 1 180 0 1 >>> pinnumber=10 >>> T 900 1000 5 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> pinseq=10 >> >> pinseq=2 >> >>> } >>> T 300 -5 8 10 0 1 0 0 1 >>> footprint=BPX85.fp >>> >> > > Thanks for your reply, but why? > > I have read all the docs I can find and yet pinseq seems to be poorly > documented. > An understandable explanation would be much appreciated, as I have > spent the last two days trying to resolve this. > > Barry > > Hi Barry, Thanks for sharing the symbol and footprint ... much appreciated. The second pin defined in the slot could be pinseq=2 ... pinseq --> pin sequence = 2. Have a look at the section "Symbol Requirements" at http://wiki.geda-project.org/geda:gschem_symbol_creation Another thing: looking at the Osram datasheet I see pins with a rectangular sectional area of 0.5 mm by 0.15 mm (least) varying to 0.7 mm by 0.25 mm (most), depending on the use of the under side of the package as a mounting surface. This would require a drill size of 29.26 mil ... round up at 30 mil ... and add 2 mil to be on the safe side when pin pitch varies and/or pins are misaligned in the package (bended pins ... YMMV) giving a drill size of 32 mil. In your footprint I see drill holes of 20 mill, either way too small. Caveat: post drill the plated through holes into unplated through holes, and solder on top layer as well ;-) One could do a "Least" and a "Most" variant of the footprint for both use cases. Just my EUR 0.02 Kind regards, Bert Timmerman.