Patryk Benderz wrote: > Wow, I need to say I am impressed :) After reading this I feel like I > could start helping this project... if I only was skilled in > electronics :(.
Thanks ! Some basic knowledge of electronics helps indeed, but quite a lot of inconsistencies can be spotted without being an expert. Besides, it's a great learning opportunity :-) > ++Schematics reviews should meet following requirements: Ah yes, I first had the intro finish with things to check and the sections had just the lists, but then I put intros there as well, and so this doesn't flow anymore. I just added "things to check". > - equivalence to the respective circuit in GTA02 (++documentation?), > except if a change has been made through an ECN You mean GTA02 documentation ? By and large, the schematics are the (public) documentation. There are plenty more details in the mailing list archives, but they're kinda hard to use as a general reference. I added the URL of the GTA02 schematics. > "- use of the same component references (R1014, etc.)" - what to do if > adding/removing component? fill the gap which occured after removing > some other resistor, or maybe take last: R(n+1) ? Good point, that needs explaining as well. Reusing component references would be extremely confusing. A R(last+1) rule would work, but one may also choose R(last+k) to emphasize any differences. The original schematics have holes in the sequences as well. > "- there be no spaces between numbers and units" - I am not native > speaker, but looks weird for me...shouldn't be "there will be no" or > "there are no"? Phew, I think I'll have to ask a native speaker to explain how exactly this one works :-) But unless I'm horribly mistaken, it is equivalent to "there shall be" or, weaker, simply "there are no". > "- units of additional parameters and all units of components that are > not R, C, or L, are written in regular SI or SI-like notation, e.g., > 17.6pF, 5.6Vac" - this might be confusing, as you show capacitor as an > example, while a moment before you write to omit C... I guess the example is a bit too compressed. What I meant was that a component that's not a capacitor but that has a capacitance worth specifying anyway should not omit the unit. For example, a TVS is not a capacitor but it has a capacitance that's normally specified. I've made the example more verbose and added also an example for a mixed situation. Ah, and I spotted a bug - we had varistors with 151 and 331 pF, which should be 150 and 330 pF, respectively. I've corrected them. > 3 > Layout > ------ > To do. - you mean physical location of components on PCB? Physical location of the components and the traces connecting them. I.e., the part where the real fun starts :-) Thanks, - Werner _______________________________________________ gta02-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/gta02-core
