kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Ian McInerney <Ian.S.McInerney@xxxxxxxx>]

Another example I just thought of (not involving costs): differential pair
rules. We could have a category "Trace length mismatch" (or some other
name...), and then someone could define rules such that:
Rule 1) If mismatch > x, flag the "Trace length mismatch" as an error
Rule 2) If mismatch > y, flag the "Trace length mismatch" as a warning

When x > y and rule 1 is a higher priority, this can then basically allow
for a zone for the DRC to flag the length mismatch where the design will
still work, but is not ideal as a warning, and any larger values where the
design would fail as an error.

-Ian

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:25 PM Ian McInerney <Ian.S.McInerney@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:13 PM Jeff Young <jeff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Imagine that violating the micro-via min bumps me up a classification
>> but violating the through-via min drops me out of pooling.  There’s a big
>> cost difference between those two.
>> >
>>
>
> This is why I think switching to the severities coming from the rules
> would be a better way than defining them by the category of the violation.
> By doing that we can limit the need for a lot of categories of violations.
> We can for instance have a single code for "Minimum drill violated", and
> then have two different rules for the minimum u-via drill and the minimum
> through-via drill. Then those rules can treat the code "Minimum drill
> violated" as either a warning or an error as they see fit.
>
> -Ian
>
>