I have created a footprint for an ILI9341 3.2" diagonal touch display module. I made the pads and numbered them, as well as 4 NPTH in the correct places. Since this board is going to be mounted onto a female header socket, I will be able to mount components under the display as long as they are less than 6mm high. My question is about a courtyard. I only need a courtyard around the 14 pins. Not the entire 88 x 55 mm boundary. Is putting a front courtyard around the pins sufficient to get what I need?
Thanks. I’m a pretty new KiCAD user. Currently using V6 from my distribution package. This is my second design. In my first design using this display I simply put down a female header, and had to laboriously locate the mounting holes in the PCB. I’d like to make the mounting holes be part of the footprint. Thanks for any insights that you can provide. I’m so new to this forum that I am not sure how to add a picture or sample footprint. ILI9341_3p2_320x240.kicad_mod (3.5 KB)
I use ILI9341 2.2" and 2.8" I make my own CAD files (usually using Spec’s).
The mounting holes can be done in either the Footprint or in the PCB. Example below shows 2.8" version with the Mounting Holes in the Footprints (as well as Courtyard).
Re your question about, ‘Yes’ Courtyard around only the Pins (whatever you want) is acceptable to me and perhaps you, too. But, whomever is going to make the PCB may have requirements about, Silk, Mask, Courtyard… etc (I can’t answer it because I make (CNC Mill) my PCB’s))
Difficult to see the Red Mounting Holes under the Silk (that’s how I like it)… you can see the Holes on the PCB…
Not sure that I understand. Is it possible to have discontinuous courtyards? Or perhaps multiple ones? Just around the pins and perhaps just around the mounting holes? Everywhere else is fair game for me to mount components.
I am not sure what the purpose of a courtyard is exactly, and if it can consists of multiple closed geometric shapes. Can I have one rectangle, and 4 circles? I only want keep outs in those areas.
I will send this board out to be fabricated, and partially populated. Some of the parts are too small for me to hand build.
Why would you? Migration from v6 to v7 is painless, compared to the v5-v6 move, and you indicate that you’re starting off. I just opened my v6 project in v7 and it was all there. Just open a new topic if you need help migrating, many here have done it.
Someone else will have to answer your question about holes, but holes can be put in the footprint too and you can draw a courtyard around them.
Besides the collision avoidance, some components may need more space around them for larger pick&place heads. Think large MCUs/FPGAs and bulky components. But that’s rare.
Not to be argumentative, but I rarely find that migration from one major version to another is trouble free. I may yet do this upgrade in the future, but I have only used the tool for 5 months, and I don’t want to learn a lot of new stuff and break several projects right now. Between projects might be a better time for me.
I don’t want a courtyard around the whole display, but only the actual areas, like the header connector and the mounting holes. I do want to mount components within the silkscreen perimeter of the display, as it is valuable space.
I think it will take you more effort to work around v6 than it is to migrate. I think once you have v7 installed, your project will just work. Especially as you are unlikely to have used complex features at this point.
In Windows you can have more than one version installed. But project files cannot go backwards so test it with a copy in v7.
Yes, I get that. That’s what disjoint courtyards are for.
There is no need to have a courtyard around the entire display area in this case. Courtyards around the connectors and mounting holes make a lot of sense here.
[EDIT] The entire perimeter of the display can be indicated on the Fab layer.
Err, I am attempting to try this. But unlike a lot of wizards here, I don’t have much design time under my belt, so it is taking me a bit of time.
Your example is not like what I am describing. You are showing holes inside a courtyard box. I do not want the outer perimeter box at all. I want to install additional components under the display, similar to these two pictures. The design I am doing is a lot more complicated than this example, so I wanted to make the component allow parts underneath it.
I understood correctly but, I won’t change my Footprint just to be able to post something that matches user exact request - the Point of my images is to show there are Holes on the Edge-Cut layer and the Courtyard has no relationship to them - I could draw swiss-cheese with holes and and wedge-shape courtyard… You need to play around and discover…
Make a courtyard as you want it and put the holes on Edge-Cut layer in footprint (or, on the PCB’s edge-cut layer)…
Wasn’t expecting you to make a custom picture for me, but your example was confusing to me. And I couldn’t tell that I had conveyed my thoughts correctly, until your response just now. Thanks for clarifying.
The point of my question, was I wanted to know if a disjoint courtyard could be made and used. Not after I had invested a hundred hours into my design, but before. I have placed some components under the display, in a dummy design, but I’m not quite ready for DRC. Soon.
Thank you for the tip to put the holes in the edge cut layer. I need to check if I did that.
But why to create a footprint for it in the first place?
Is it not just a 14-pin connector (which is already in the library) and 4 holes (which are also in the library)?
I’d just do some drawing in the user drawing layer, place the connector with holes accordingly and group them together.
Quicker and easier to modify if needed than making a footprint I think.
Doing it that way you have courtyards for the above components already in place.
The only advantage of the footprint is the fact you can assign 3D model to it.
I think the answer to that is it’s a single symbol in the design and it makes sense to have a single footprint for it. If you were to take a bunch of footprints then you’d have to deal with several components, and omit from BOM, specify only on board, or other workarounds. A single footprint would also be easy to move around in the layout without having to make sure grouped footprints move in lock-step.
Because I don’t know any better! If I knew what to do and how to do it, I would not have even asked the initial question. There would be no need for a forum if everyone was born knowing, or had 20 years experience in the field. But alas, I didn’t know, so I asked. I did ask for alternatives, and I am thankful that you answered and provided one. I will see if it can help me. As a beginner, I know nothing of all the many special features in the SW. So thanks for the heads up.
I’ve already made a footprint, so that that’s done. I will play around some more with the footprint, to see if I can get anywhere. If not, I will try your idea.
This is my dummy test board that I routed and got it to pass DRC. Won’t work, but that’s irrelevant for this discussion. I think it is ok. The four holes show up in the NPTH drill file, so is that good enough?
