On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 16:39 +0000, alan.b.pearce@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> > > But I agree with your comment about the symbols for gates. More
> complex
> > > devices like counters and so on do have symbols that can be better
> than
> > > the 'American' ones.
> >=20
> > FWIW and IMHO, beyond "simple" gates I don't want any schematic
> symbol,
> > at that point HDL is FAR more efficient then a mess of boxes with
> > writing in it.
>=20
> But somewhere along the line, that device containing the HDL needs a
> symbol that gets put on a schematic to generate a net list to lay out a
> PCB ...

Actually for many here, the HDL is usually uploaded to a piece of
programmable logic (be it PAL, CPLD, FPGA, etc.), so the schematic
symbol is of that device (an "IC" symbol).

Otherwise the HDL is being made into an ASIC, in which case it will of
course have a schematic symbol, but it'll just be an "IC" symbol as
well.

Function specific symbols are actually kinda rare in the digital domain,
other then basic gates, the only ones I sometimes use are DAC/ADC
symbols, even there the physical device often is multifunction negating
the possibility of just plunking down a fixed function symbol (i.e. a
DAC with HDMI and analog outputs).

TTYL


--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.