kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Mikael Arguedas <mikael.arguedas@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Miguel,

Thanks for the clarification. I can now appreciate the difference. In this
case it's indeed more useful to have a minimum size that won't be 0.

Actually I thought these were 1nm steps. My intent was to have every
courtyard size to be rounded to 0.1mm and thus land on a 0.05mm grid as
specified in the KLC.
Anyway I tested it on a couple of footprints and it seems to be giving the
expected result.

Thanks for reviewing and for the explanation!


On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
majopela@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Mikael,
>
>    Sorry, my comment is probably irrelevant,
>
>  sizex = (int(sizex/100000)+1)*100000
>
> vs
>
>    sizex = (int((sizex+(100000-1))/100000))*100000
>
>
> for sizex of 0, on the first one you end up with 100000
> while on the second you end up with 0
>
> and for sizex of 1, both render the same result.
>
> Anyway, given those are 10nm steps, you probably don’t care, and actually
> you want to start by 1mm minimum,
> right?, so your function would be more appropriate.
>
> Cheers :)
>
> On 14 Feb 2016, at 15:28, Mikael Arguedas <mikael.arguedas@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Miguel,
>
> The question may seem silly (sorry I'm an EE guy who doesnt know much
> about computer science). How is your suggested implementation of ceil
> better? Is it a matter of stability ? performance ?
> They seem completely identical to me in terms of performance and result
> but I'd really like to learn where I mistaken.
>
> Thanks!
> MIkael
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Mikael Arguedas <
> mikael.arguedas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Here is an updated version of the patch, I removed the textSize fix
>> because it has already been merged here
>> <https://lists.launchpad.net/kicad-developers/msg23113.html>.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mikael Arguedas
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Mikael Arguedas <
>> mikael.arguedas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Miguel,
>>>
>>> I'm new to bazaar and that's the reason I started by just submitting
>>> patch files but for any further feature addition I'll send a branch for
>>> review.
>>>
>>> Yes the purpose of this function was to perform a ceil. Either of these
>>> implementations is good for me given that they have the same complexity and
>>> the same result.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mikael Arguedas
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
>>> majopela@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Mikael, I haven’t fully looked at the patch, it would be easier if
>>>> you can send a branch for review via launchpad.
>>>>
>>>> But, Could you explain those changes:
>>>>
>>>> === modified file 'pcbnew/scripting/plugins/qfp_wizard.py'
>>>> --- pcbnew/scripting/plugins/qfp_wizard.py 2016-02-11 15:02:37 +0000
>>>> +++ pcbnew/scripting/plugins/qfp_wizard.py 2016-02-12 03:39:11 +0000
>>>> @@ -113,6 +113,8 @@
>>>>          self.draw.SetLayer(pcbnew.F_CrtYd)
>>>>          sizex = (lim_x + cmargin) * 2 + pad_length
>>>>          sizey = (lim_y + cmargin) * 2 + pad_length
>>>> +        sizex = (int(sizex/100000)+1)*100000
>>>> +        sizey = (int(sizey/100000)+1)*100000
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- pcbnew/scripting/plugins/zip_wizard.py 2016-02-11 15:02:37 +0000
>>>> +++ pcbnew/scripting/plugins/zip_wizard.py 2016-02-12 03:31:52 +0000
>>>> @@ -106,6 +106,8 @@
>>>>          thick = self.draw.GetLineThickness()
>>>>          sizex = (pin1posX + cmarginx) * 2 + pad_Hsize + thick
>>>>          sizey = (pin1posY + cmarginy) * 2 + pad_Vsize + thick
>>>> +        sizex = (int(sizex/100000)+1)*100000
>>>> +        sizey = (int(sizey/100000)+1)*100000
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The semantics for size x/y seem very different. :)
>>>>
>>>> Also, are you trying to round here?
>>>> +        sizex = (int(sizex/100000)+1)*100000
>>>> +        sizey = (int(sizey/100000)+1)*100000
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn’t it be better like
>>>> sizex = (int((sizex+(100000-1))/100000))*100000
>>>> (if you were trying to do a ceil?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Miguel Ángel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Feb 2016, at 05:03, Mikael Arguedas <mikael.arguedas@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> Here is the updated patch including changes from
>>>> https://lists.launchpad.net/kicad-developers/msg23059.html
>>>> This patch fixes the following KLC violations in the generated
>>>> footprints:
>>>> - fixes the text size as specified in rule 6.9
>>>> - rounds the courtyard position on a 0.05mm grid as specified in rule
>>>> 6.6
>>>> - set the attribute for SMD components as specified in rule 10.5
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mikael Arguedas
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Mikael Arguedas <
>>>> mikael.arguedas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for spamming.
>>>>> This patch sets the footprint attibute to SMD if needed. This allows
>>>>> the generated footprints to comply with KLC rule 10.5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mikael Arguedas
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <fixWizards.patch>_______________________________________________
>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>