Timeline for Schematic representation of AGND and DGND in a shared ground plane design
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2020 at 12:53 | vote | accept | Jeremy | ||
| May 14, 2020 at 20:47 | answer | added | user57037 | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 14, 2020 at 13:18 | comment | added | Jeremy | @mkeith - I'd say this is worth writing up as an answer. | |
| May 13, 2020 at 20:33 | comment | added | user57037 | Re-reading that Henry Ott piece, he is saying that there should only be one ground plane and that noise isolation should be achieved by placement and routing. There is no good way to document the placement and routing requirements in the schematic other than adding notes and diagrams, which you seem to be referring to as ad-hoc. Maybe some companies would have guidelines for how that information should be recorded in the schematic. When I worked at motorola, we would write a routing requirements document totally separate from schematic. Layout guy would use it for stackup, placement, etc. | |
| May 13, 2020 at 20:17 | comment | added | user57037 | Are you trying to get enforcement by rules at layout time or documentation in the schematic? I am pretty sure that if I were reading your schematic I would not want one net to have two different names. But maybe that is personal preference. If there is one monolithic GND, I would rather it just be named GND and leave it at that. | |
| May 13, 2020 at 19:41 | history | edited | Jeremy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 225 characters in body
|
| May 13, 2020 at 19:35 | comment | added | Jeremy | This method doesn't work for the type of design I propose (and which I have seen advocated by many reputable sources) because it results in a connection between two distinct ground nets at a single point - which is precisely what this design aims to avoid. | |
| May 13, 2020 at 19:31 | comment | added | Jeremy | I call it hacky (perhaps unfairly) because - unless there's a net tie component I haven't come across that solves this problem - it causes a DRC violation that must be manually approved. | |
| May 13, 2020 at 18:41 | comment | added | DKNguyen | You might be looking for a net short command. | |
| May 13, 2020 at 17:27 | answer | added | Stefan Wyss | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 13, 2020 at 16:36 | comment | added | Andy aka | Why should this perfectly acceptable (that you call hacky) method be any different for the type of design you propose? | |
| May 13, 2020 at 15:34 | review | First posts | |||
| May 19, 2020 at 16:43 | |||||
| May 13, 2020 at 15:31 | history | asked | Jeremy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |