kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jeff Young <jeff@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Seth,

I was thinking about a similar issue which is that we probably can’t require users to move to the new DR system (as it will be considerably more technical).  So perhaps using the old system as defaults which can be overridden by the new makes sense.

Cheers,
Jeff.


> On 4 Jul 2019, at 22:40, Seth Hillbrand <seth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff-
> 
> Ideally, I'd like to find an option that doesn't need to move twice during v6.  Toward that goal, what if we moved edge_clearance to the defaults section?  Until we implement the design rules and/or polygon-specific clearance, it simply controls everything.  Once we integrate the new features, they are allowed to override the default.
> 
> Thoughts?
> -Seth
> 
> On 2019-07-04 12:07, Jeff Young wrote:
>> 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