At 04:22 PM 12/6/01 -0800, Dwight Harm wrote:
>One problem with a "power table" is that it's only "comments" -- it's not
>used to generate the netlist.  It's quite possible a designer could change
>the power connection for the symbol but forget to update the table, or
>vice-versa.  Or even change the symbol in the library, and the table, but
>somehow the library change doesn't get updated into the schematic (something
>many of us have seen more than once).

A power table which does not control the netlist is a lousy idea, besides 
being extra work.

But using extra power sections can produce something very much like a power 
table that *does* control the net list.

These sections can be placed next to the part for something that is very 
much like having explicit power pins on each section, or they can be placed 
on a page dedicated to power supply connections. By being on a separate 
page they will not clutter up the schematic.

There is some danger, as Protel is implemented, that a power section will 
be forgotten. In general, I recommend placing all sections of multipart 
components. Tango, as I have mentioned in the past, had a report that gave 
a list of all unplaced sections of multipart components used in the design. 
I don't think that Protel has a report like this, but the cross-reference 
report can be used, albeit more tediously.

It would be useful to have a part section attribute that indicated that 
this section *must* be placed or an error message will be generated in DRC. 
This would be used for power sections.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to