2
\$\begingroup\$

I'm a newbie in EAGLE, so I'll try my best to explain myself.

I need to connect a micro controller (port 19 and 18 in the pic) to two different components (pinhead and usb).

So, for instance, I've proceeded with: right-click --> Name --> USB_DP and I placed a label on the net, but how do I create a functioning connection for ICSP_DAT? In the image ICSP_DAT is showed that way just because I've added a text with layer 95 Names.

enter image description here

EDIT

As suggested, I used label 91 Nets for ICSP_DAT and left USB_DP as wire's name. This solution produces this result using SHOW command on ICSP_DAT's text and selecting wire 19:

enter image description here

Is it ok, or should I use label 91 Nets for both? ERC gives a warning: "Only one pin on net ICSP_DAT" (regarding to the example above).

(I had to re-upload images to stay in the 2-images limit for "low-reputation" users, also I needed to show images to explain myself, I couldn't just comment below)

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you give both connections the same net name, then Eagle will automatically know that they are connected. That's how net naming works. \$\endgroup\$
    – DerStrom8
    Apr 26, 2017 at 20:52

1 Answer 1

3
\$\begingroup\$

All net segments with the same name are connected in Eagle. If you name a net segment ICSP_DAT by a connector, and then a short segment sticking out from a microcontroller pin also ICSP_DAT, the two will be connected.

Following that logic, each net has exactly one name. You can't connect two nets by giving segment both names somehow. If the nets are connected, then they are the same net, so must have the same name.

Of course the other way to connect points of a net is to explicitly wire them together using the NET command. Implicitly connecting net segments by using names is sometimes referred to as using "air wires". That can be legitimate to avoid a cluttered ratsnest, and is necessary across pages. However, you should think carefully about whether directly shown connections might be clearer.

Good schematics aren't only correct, they are clear and easy to interpret correctly by humans.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ You're right, unfortunately, I've ended up routing traces without airwires with the ROUTE tool. \$\endgroup\$
    – idontsink
    May 6, 2017 at 15:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @idont: Go back and fix the schematic represent the circuit properly, then go to the board and run the DRC check. That will show you all the places where the routing doesn't match the schematic. Fix the routing until you don't have DRC errors anymore. \$\endgroup\$ May 7, 2017 at 12:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.