I’m porting some OrCAD schematics and noticed they used a crafty power symbol convention that’s new to me. The bar and the arrow are the same net, but the arrow is only used once and indicates the power source.
It’s almost like KiCad’s PWR_FLAG, without the ERC benefit. In my port, I’d like to at least retain the information. So I figure I have three options:
Just draw two power symbols with the same pin name. Nothing lost, nothing gained, but not what I would expect in a KiCad schematic.
Draw two power symbols with the same pin name, but make one a “Power Output”. Visually identical to original, and gains ERC benefit, but even weirder for a KiCad user.
Use the PWR_FLAG, albeit a bit closer to the power net than I’d typically do in a KiCad schematic.
I like option 3. Which of the three potential ports of the original arrow symbol do you like?
I’m used to use bar symbol as connecting to GND (or several GNDs if they are used - Analog / Digital / Isolated /…) and arrow symbol as connection to supply.
The schematic with all my arrows replaced by bar would be hard to read for me.
I don’t like PWR_FLAG disturbing my schematic so I never used it.
This, plus I realised that some nets don’t require a PWR_FLAG because they’re already connected to a Power Output pin. So I end up with a confusing combination of bar and sometimesPWR_FLAG, which I don’t think has an obvious relationship with the original.
I’ve drawn new symbols to match the originals, and then added PWR_FLAGs in the KiCad-suited way. A bit weird, but no weirder than the original, and clear once you know (which a bit of descriptive text could accommodate). Plus you get the KiCad ERC benefit.
