> > Current pintype attributes are defined in the same way as commercial > > packages I've seen. What I also miss is the "power source" or "power > > sink" pintype. Adding them to the DRC is fairly trivial, and also =20 > > to the > > docs. Would it be better to have pwr_in and pwr_out pintypes? > > Consider linear/lm7805-1.sym. No pintypes. But what should they be? =20 > Well, maybe OUT should have type pwr_out (if it exists). But what =20 > about IN? Perhaps pwr_in seems sensible, but then it's most likely =20 > connected to a diode and a cap: will DRC be able to figure this out? =20 > Then there's GND, what pintype is that? Remember that it's perfectly =20 > sensible to connect this to something other than ground, to get 5V =20 > *relative* to some other potential. > > The trouble I see is that the correct pintype needs to be obvious to =20 > the symbol creator, or chaos results. In pure digital stuff the =20 > correct pintype usually *is* obvious, but in other applications it's =20 > not.
Maybe what's needed is a "NA" = "not applicable" pin type. This will tell the DRC checker to not worry about the connection and report no error. Under ViewDraw, I think you can place an "analog" pin type which tells the DRC checker to not worry about what it is connected to. IMHO, the utility of a schematic DRC check is in finding single pin nets. THese are often the result of a real mistake, i.e. the net is named output_1 on one page, but named output-1 on the other page. As long as the DRC checker is reporting single pin nets, I don't care about other things like gezzinnas attached to other gezzinnas and not attached to gezzouttas. Stuart
