kicad-developers team mailing list archive
-
kicad-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #18544
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/08/2015 11:36 PM, Chris Pavlina wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:28:08PM +0200, Heiko Rosemann wrote:
>>> A given component should have exactly ONE available footprint.
>>> If your opamp comes in PDIP-8 and SOIC-8, those are two
>>> different components.
>>
>> Why? There's a good point for the opposite: Making different PCBs
>> (SMD for series production/no SMD for prototyping/hobbyists or
>> different casings) from a single - consistent - schematic.
>> Otherwise you are going to run into trouble because you'll have
>> multiple schematics of the same system and you need to change
>> something on the logical (schematic) side.
>
> I explained this already. Look at the pinouts for the different
> footprints of LT1013. Only a very inexperienced person would claim
> that assuming different footprints have the same pinout is a good
> idea.
Different footprints for the same component are not required to have
the same pinout. You don't have to touch the schematic (there you only
see IN1+, IN1-, OUT1 etc. - no information about actual pinout), when
you change footprints on the PCB without breaking the connectivity as
defined in the schematic.
Simplest use case: Transistor in SOT23. Existing variant connects pin
B in symbol to pad 1 in footprint, pin C in symbol to pad 2 in
footprint, pin E in symbol to pad 3 in footprint. Now you would save a
few vias with a different alignment and your transistor is available
in reverse, so you create a second variant, connect pin B to pad 3,
pin C to pad 2, pin E to pad 1. Don't need to copy symbols, don't need
to copy footprints to match pin and pad numbers - and when you route
the PCB, you right-click on the footprint and say "change variant",
done. In the kicad-model this use case leads to SOT23-123, SOT23-321,
SOT23-BCE, SOT23-ECB etc. cluttering the footprint list. It's there
already...
Again, I'm explaining how Eagle does it (though it doesn't go all the
way - if you have different footprints with different pad numbers,
like a PDIP40 and a TQFP44, you need to create two components) and
where I have actually used it. I'm not saying "that's how kicad needs
to do it" (not my place to say this, with no code contributions from
myself...), but I do believe the options should be clear.
BR, Heiko
- --
Mein PGP-Key zur Verifizierung: http://pgp.mit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlV2kPIACgkQ/Vb5NagElAWq0gCdETr2IauqQ+IvvQLb9dfAT6M4
FG4AoLOg+ejINxTgLGhTtNZP010IBBOF
=rE20
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
References
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Andy Peters, 2015-06-05
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Lorenzo Marcantonio, 2015-06-05
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Chris Pavlina, 2015-06-05
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Eldar Khayrullin, 2015-06-06
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Andy Peters, 2015-06-07
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Eldar Khayrullin, 2015-06-07
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Andy Peters, 2015-06-08
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Heiko Rosemann, 2015-06-08
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Andy Peters, 2015-06-08
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Heiko Rosemann, 2015-06-08
-
Re: Schematic Symbol Philosophy?
From: Chris Pavlina, 2015-06-08