Wait, so like selective exceptions?
This is good! as someone that does high voltage PCB, having means to add keepouts, while creepage constraints are worked on, is key.
Presently I have to use multiple keep-outs of suitable width and piece them together to produce a permitted violation via a keepout.
@Naib, I’m not sure it’s going to do what you want or not. Can you say a bit more about what you’re looking for?
(Mods: move this to a new thread?)
I guess keepouts are a usable workaround but to be honest a proper net clearance matrix might be better for your usecase (assuming i understand the limited information correctly)
Would the net clearance matrix be able to handle clearances between groups of nets separately from clearances between individual nets, for example like in a power supply with galvanic isolation between primary and secondary side, where the nets on the primary side need a smaller clearance to each other, and a larger clearance to any net on the secondary side?
The current way we are thinking about a “clearance matrix” is by using selector rules. A clearance rule would have a binary selector (i.e. clearance from A to B). A and B can each be any kind of query like “things in net X” or “things in netclass Y”. So what you are describing would be “clearance from netclass X to netclass Y” where Y is some kind of “all other nets” class
Sounds good to me.
Would it be possible to define negations, like “clearance from netclass X to things not in netclass X”?
Yes, the plan is for a rule parser that supports logical expressions and things like that.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
