kicad-lib-committers team mailing list archive

[Carl Poirier <carl.poirier.2@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rule 6.7 says that no footprint should be duplicated to match a different
pin ordering. In the case of non-isolated mounting tabs, if they are always
connected to the middle pin, then there would be no different pin orders.

That being said, I think having symbols with two collector pins is also a
sensible solution.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 2:39 PM, nnn <nnn4000@xxxxx> wrote:

>  I think that tab shouldn't be numbered the same as middle pin. According
> to rule 6.7 the tab should be considered in schematic symbol. If user want
> to connect tab of TO-220 he should use schematic symbol of transistor with
> two collector pins. If some IC has many ground pins, every one has a number
> and exists in schematic symbol. The same simple approach can be applied to
> eg TO220.
>
>
> W dniu 10.01.2015 o 20:16, Carl Poirier pisze:
>
> Are any of you aware if packages with a non-isolated mounting tab
> connected to any other pad than the middle one exist?
>
>  If they don't, then I would opt for one footprint with the tab connected
> and one footprint with the tab unconnected.
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Carl Poirier <carl.poirier.2@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> The question of pin names had been solved a while ago already. It was
>> agreed that the symbols would take care of pin swaps.
>>
>>  As for the tab, I wished to avoid the board-level edit of the
>> footprint, but it's a good compromise to avoid many library variants.
>>
>>  Michal Salaban (See other email) suggests another solution, which
>> consists of attributing pin number 4 to the tab in the schematic symbol,
>> and pad number four to the tab in the footprint. Here, the user alse has to
>> manually assign a net to the pad, but in the schematic. Any comments on
>> that one?
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Vesa Solonen <vesa.solonen@xxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 31/12/14, 04:01, Carl Poirier kirjoitti:
>>> > Vesa,
>>> >
>>> > If I understand correctly, you say the oyvind-aabling library is a good
>>> > example of having multiple variants of the same housing, which you
>>> don't
>>> > like. Right?
>>>
>>> Hi Carl,
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite, if I understand correctly ;)
>>> With multiple variants depending on a device I meant e.g. TO-220_GDS and
>>> TO-220_BCE, which I don't like. I see why pin names are nice on the PCB,
>>> but they don't belong to the standardised housing library. They should
>>> be pulled from the schematic symbol the standard housing is linked to.
>>> This should be quite easy to add in to the pcbnew pin rendering,
>>> possibly with an option to turn it on part by part basis.
>>>
>>> In the oyvind-aabling's library variants are only mechanical variants,
>>> vertical, horizontal with tab to PCB and horizontal with tab away from
>>> PCB. Everything parametrically generated including 3-D and
>>> not_too_long_names.
>>>
>>> -Vesa
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-lib-committers
> Post to     : kicad-lib-committers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-lib-committers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>