Multiple identical pins internally interconnected? Pcbnew can't see it

Layout
47

symbol will need a red symbolic ‘wire’ going from one pin to another

Thanks for the clarification, now it makes perfect sense :slight_smile:

49

I always thought that that’s what additional copper layers are for. Add an extra internal layer and use it only to make internal connections explicit where necessary. That layer doesn’t go to manufacturing, but keeps the DRC happy. There’s nothing special to do on the pins: on the schematic, you’ll still connect all GND pins (for example) to GND. But on the PCB layout, only some of those connections will be on the layers you pay money for. The dependable internal connections within components will all be connected using traces on the “interconnect” layer that doesn’t leave your door, i.e. the PCB manufacturer doesn’t see it.

The manufacturer will extract the netlist for flying probe PCB testing from the layout itself, so from the manufacturer’s point of view, their system will see the internally connected nets as separate nets, as if you removed all the internal connections. The connections come into being when the components, acting as jumpers, are inserted into the board.

I’ve been doing it this way for 3 decades, on various PCB packages. It’s a common problem indeed.

Sometimes the components have connections so stout that they can be used freely and aren’t subject to additional review - like the mentioned battery holders and switches with internally connected pins. For those:

  1. Establish one inner copper layer as “footprint-only virtual interconnect”, so that everyone editing the footprint libraries within your organization knows what it’s for, and which layer to use.
  2. In KiCad, add the “permanent” internal connections as lines (“traces”) on the front or rear copper layer. Then save the footprint, close footprint editor, edit the footprint with a text editor and change the layer to the selected inner copper layer. Other EDA systems, as well as future KiCad versions, may allow these details within footprints without any fuss.
50

Perhaps you should repost in a new thread if you think your observations are worth attention. Otherwise I doubt if anybody will value the 42nd post in a 6 year old thread if they have to read preceding posts to get the context.

51