I am getting erc warnings because I’ve connected the bidirectional pins of some component to GND.
The weird thing is, if I delete the junctions/wires, reconnect them and re-run the erc check, it detects the same problem on the other side of the component. If I then “correct” that one, and re-run, it ping-pongs back to the other side.
I don’t understand what KiCad wants from me!
Is there something wrong about tying bidirectional pins to GND?
If possible I would very much like to use ERC, I would rather not ignore warnings. What can I do to make this correct for KiCad.
Sure, if the pin is set to Output then you have a short to ground… if you are sure you will never set them to output them, then you can ignore the DRC, or create a custom symbol with pin type “output”.
If you are not sure they will ever be set to Output, then use a resistor to ground, which keep everyone happy.
In this case, I am just using 3 pins of an octal logic level translator with an 1.8V side and a 3.3V side. It has bidirectional capability (with a direction input). The remaining 5 pins on each side are unused, so I am putting all of them to GND (on both sides).
OK, I see why KiCad would raise a warning now. Of course, it has no idea what direction the pins are going to be or what the nature of the component is.
It would be cool if I could tell it to ignore that particular warning, much like one can mute specific instances of warnings generated by an IDE when writing source code.
So ERC is doing its job and making you think about the warning. You can then decide to ignore it.
Turning off the warning globally is dangerous as you might have a situation somewhere else where you would short the output
I agree it is valuable to have these things called out. It appears that the options tab will silence that warning for at least the whole project (or even the installation of KiCad).
I meant to say that it would be cool to suppress warnings on an individual instance basis, perhaps even with a commentary. It is good to be forced to address each warning and “silence” it… but then be warned again if one causes the same warning to appear elsewhere.
