kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jeff Young <jeff@xxxxxxxxx>]

Looking through our current set of board setup properties, only solder_mask_min_width would join edge_clearance in a design_rules section.  

Most of the other properties are either most-recently-used values (zone_clearance, via_size, etc.) or true DRC values (uvias_allowed, trace_min, etc.).

The outlier is max_error, which is mostly a performance vs beauty trade-off, but does affect the generated board.

So,

1) leave solder_mask_min_width and edge_clearance in setup for now

2) create a design_rules section for solder_mask_min_width and edge_clearance

3) leave edge_clearance in the project file for now

I think I’d vote for (1) simply because I don’t know how (2) will play with Jon’s stuff.  But the only one I don’t like is (3).

Cheers,
Jeff.


> On 4 Jul 2019, at 15:42, Seth Hillbrand <seth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 2019-07-04 09:24, Jeff Young wrote:
>>> Since this is DRC, can we keep it in its current place until the DRC manager goes in
>> Well, there’s DRC and there’s DR.  The other options really control
>> only what is *checked*, whereas this one controls stuff *on* the
>> board.  Granted a lot of Jon’s rules will also fit into the DR camp,
>> but I feel a little more reticent to move this one out.
>> Thoughts?
>> Jeff.
> 
> That's a valid point.  Ideally, I'd like to see this in a "DesignRules" section.  Different manufacturers will have different requirements here, so the DRC/DFM import would need to modify this value.  The check also needs to allow separate values for internal vs. external layers.
> 
> If we want to separate the generation from the checking, we might want to put this setting in the zone parameters.  In which case, we might use a global default setting that is used for new zones.
> 
> -Seth