Hello, On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:01:34PM +0100, Attila Kinali wrote: > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:51:58 +0100 > Reimar Döffinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, IMO the only real problem is that it is hard to get the overview > > what connection goes where actually. > > Well, that's normal with schematics. Ok, the OGD1 schematics > are not the nicest, but they are clean and not badly structured. > The schematics are in the complexity of maybe a program with 10-30k loc > of C code. You don't expect to read that like a book and imediatly > know which function is calling which and where they finaly end up, do you?
No, but with C, grep works better, and most importantly I can fit 4 source windows on my screen and it's still readable :-) > > Also page 15 of the schematics has quite a few missing or misplaced > > connection dots. > > Where? I don't see any such mistakes. Possibly at the top of Q1, I admit I am a bit confused as to what that box is supposed to mean. At C278 the bottom one is too far to the left. I also thought that D4/D5 should have one, but after comparing with the other schematics that seems to be intentional that way? > > IMO also for the power supply schematics, isn't there a connection dot > > missing as well at those double diodes (which looks a bit weird with one > > unconnected, what is the reason here?)? > > It's a dual diode device with only one diode used, nothing strange > about this. What is strange there is the labeling of the pins (3,4,5 > instead of 1,2,3) but that might be due to the packaging (which i > haven't checked) Yes, true, I supposed so, but I'm not used enough at reading schematics to see immediately that it is one package :-). Greetings, Reimar Döffinger _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
