Hi friends,
I’ve been working with the LAN9252 IC recently, and it has multiple power out pins (VDDCR) that I had to add to the custom symbol. The KiCAD convention for multiple output pins seems to be setting one of them as a power output and the rest as passives, and then making the passive pins invisible before stacking them onto the visible power output pin.
I’ve been having a few issues with this pocess:
Once the passive pins are stacked under the power output pin, they can’t be edited. Changing the name of any of the pins in the stack causes the pins to weirdly fuse together, and removing any one pin from the stack becomes impossible.
In multi-part symbols, a symbol “VDDCR-UB” is generated in my Unit B symbol schematic, and its visibility seems to be linked to the stack of pins in my Unit A symbol schematic. This results in an awkward stack of pins floating around in my Unit B schematic, which will cause problems. I’ve posted screenshots of the problem here.
Are you still on version 4? This should have been fixed with version 5.
Did you enable “all units are not interchangeable”? (This is needed to be able to have different units be different. Otherwise kicad assumes all units are exactly the same.)
Did you ensure the “synchronized pin edit mode” is disabled (button in the top toolbar. In v5 automatically disabled if you set “all units are not interchangeable”.)
Thanks Rene! Apologies for the late reply–I was out sick and just got back to this. I am running KiCad 5.
After checking the “all units are not interchangeable” box, everything worked–the pins in the stack became editable, and they didn’t show up in Unit B anymore. I appreciate the assistance!
Before Rene blows a gasget, kindly select the Help/About Kiad menu item, click on the Copy Version Info button and paste the results here. Lots of new users recently asking for assistance and not providing this important version information for us to know how to help. (Different versions are either subtly or obviously different. Don’t want to try to suggest solution for one version when different solutions apply to the help requester’s version.)
I understood this to be solved to be honest. Based on:
And especially
So no need for further details i think. (And my rant in the other post was not fully serious to be honest. In a lot of cases it is enough to have a rough idea about the version, i just always wonder why people ignore instructions. I also had been hungry at the time of writing that rant. And a bit frustrated from my simulations taking that ■■■■■■■ long.)
