Good morning,
In PCBNew, I would like to know if there is a possibility to automatically transfer the net_name present on a component pin?
For example, having installed a PinHeader of N pins, each pin having a net-name coming from the diagram, can we indicate somewhere on a component pin
to transfer the net-name to which it is connected?
This could be a visible fingerprint attribute or not in a layer of your choice…
Of course, one can go through the creation of a specific fingerprint to display a specific fingerprint attribute, but the goal is to obtain
automatically a marking defined by PCBNew following reading of the diagram (in order to obtain dynamic and error-free marking…).
Thanks in advance.
I think it is possibe. If you look at the lis of variables below (also valid in V8.0.0) then it appears you can use NET_NAME inside footprints to define texts, and also: NET_NAME(<pad number>)
I have not done this myself, so I’m not sure if it works.
It’s really very kind of you to give me this very complete answer.
But, simply put, is there a simple action to perform, for example in editing the footprint of a component, to tell PCBNew to bring up this NET_NAME attribute at the component PIN level (the name of the net currently connected to this PIN)?
Yes. Add a text item to the footprint with this text:
${NET_NAME(1)}
When the footprint has been placed on a board through “Update PCB from Schematic” function and it has a corresponding symbol, or the pad 1 has a net attached, the text item will show the net name of the pad number 1.
Exactly what I was looking for.
Now I have the method.
Thank you so much.
Hello (next),
This would be perfect if the ${NET_NAME(aPinNumber)} attribute was associated with “each pin”, not just with the fingerprint of the component…
All this in order to “limit user errors”. Finally, the icing on the cake, in the case of hierarchical block design, possibility of displaying only “the tail of the NET_NAME”, to avoid having the entire hierarchical chain present in the NET_NAME…Sorry, but I does not imagine the design other than starting from the encapsulations of “hierarchical blocks”, any component should itself be “a hierarchical block”… going down to the primitives, down to the atoms… the very thing that the 100% object languages like SmallTalk.
I may be asking too much, but I was taught not to do it if I didn’t know how to do it…all this in order to limit my participation in the fatal increase in entropy irremediably linked to any action on our universe, at least now and locally!
Thanks in advance.