Re: gEDA-user: preferred power connection style?

[Mark Cianfaglione <mark_dot_cianfaglione-at-NOSPAMsympatico_dot_ca>]

I'm leaning towards putting the power pins either on the device 
itself, if there aren't to many power pins, or in another block if 
there are. It used to be simply a single power rail and we all called 
it VCC for digital +5V but nowadays in some of the devices I use there 
are 3 different power rails. The net approach is cleaner if all the 
symbols you use are yours but if you import any then you have a 
problem as the style and net naming may be different for a lot of the 
power signals. This may cause more problems than it's worth.

My personal vote is to define them as pins either in the same block or 
as a separate block.

Mark



Jan Stap wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 06:51:26AM +1300, Richard Barrington wrote:
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm a new gEDA user, and have just made an additional micro-controller
>>component as per the docs, but the components on-line mostly see to
>>provide power pins rather than using power nets. Explicitly defining
>>them as pins makes more sense to me, particularly when you have multiple
>>power inputs (Vss, Vssa), but the docs suggest doing it the other way.
>>So it prompts me ask which is correct / preferred?
>>
>>Richard.
> 
> 
> I'm new to gEDA too and a wondering about the same thing (did not post
> the question yet though). The doc on this topic (net= attribute mini-HOWTO,
> http://www.geda.seul.org/docs/20021103/netattrib/netattrib.txt) advises
> to use net= attributes for the power pins, without visible power pins on
> the symbols. It also signals the fact that most symbols in the current
> library await addition of the net= attribute (and I guess removal of the
> visible power pins).
> 
> But I wonder how to go about this for e.g. a DC-DC converter that I am 
> planning to use, which is providing power for the rest of the circuit. 
> And how to go about auto-power-down circuitry, where one part of the 
> circuit is shutting down or re-powering another part. This requires
> defining net= attributes for each part of the circuit that shares its 
> power supply. With regard to readability of a circuit, I guess it's a 
> trade-off between having to match net= signal names, or having possibly 
> many power wires running around.
> 
> Experienced gEDA users out there: please comment.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jan Stap
> 
>