On 12:50 PM 4/02/2001 -0800, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said:
>At 01:03 PM 2/4/01 +0000, Steve Wiseman wrote:
>>I'm about to stop using the power pintype - it doesn't seem to gain me
>>anything. The plan is to use in & out instead. This will let the netlist
>>checker confirm that there's a driver to each power net, which is
>>something that I don't currently get with the power pintype.
>>
>>Can anyone see a down-side to this plan?
>
>Hmm... What we really need are power-input and power-source pin types.
>
>Okay, the down side. One will need to edit power pins on connectors from
>passive (which they normally would be) to output. Protel does not make
>this easy; one will need a separate library part for every configuration.
>One could, however, place a power source pin (see next paragraph) next to
>each such pin, thus supplying the source.
>
>Instead of using power ports, one will need to use special power parts,
>basically single pins with the output attribute. Not a bad idea, since
>they will not automatically become global. But I think there might be
>complications with the net list, which would contain these pins.
>
>Okay, power-input pins are essentially for ERC purposes just like any
>other input pin. So changing the present power pins to input pins would
>cause an error message to arise if there were no power source (which would
>be an output pin or a power pin). This could be done globally for an
>entire library. I don't see a down side to that. Perhaps someone else will.
>
>This would allow, for example, an amplifier output to be used as a power
>source, something which I have seen. Yet it would not cause problems with
>the power objects, which are inherently power. One could not, however,
>place a power object on that net. One would have to use regular net
>connectivity.
>
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Abdulrahman Lomax
To solve the connector issue:
Why not add a directive that can "modify" a passive into a another sort of
pin type. This would allow connectors to be fully "typed". The directive
would only work on a passive pin and would allow the passive pin to take on
a different type. An error would be generated for any attempt to override
a non-passive pin.
Solves you issue with variants of connectors *and* allows much better ERC
than we currently have for connectors as well as supporting power-input and
power-output variants on connectors to allow full ERC (if you can be
bothered setting it up - which I usually can.)
(We are getting some server lag issues here again as I suggested something
very similar to what Abd ul-Rahman has suggested (source and sink power
variants) about half an hour ago but I didn't think as far through as he has.)
Ian Wilson
____________________________________________________________
Considered Solutions Pty Ltd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ABN: 96 088 410 002
5 The Crescent
CHATSWOOD 2067
Ph: +61 2 9411 4248 Fax: +61 2 9411 4249
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This message sent by: PROTEL EDA USERS MAILING LIST
*
* Use the "reply" command in your email program to
* respond to this message.
*
* To unsubscribe from this mailing list use the form at
* the Association web site. You will need to give the same
* email address you originally used to subscribe (do not
* give an alias unless it was used to subscribe).
*
* Visit http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
* to unsubscribe or to subscribe a new email address.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
________________________________________________________
To leave the EDAFORUM discussion list, send a email with
'leave edaforum' in the body to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
More Information : http://www.dolist.net
