pcb

m4 footprint errors

Bug #699241 reported by a-b_roll
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
pcb
Won't Fix
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Two bugs in m4 library (geda.inc);

Bug sf-1) 10 pin MSOP (PKG_MSOP10) only has 8 pins in macro definition!
Current definition:
define(`PKG_MSOP10', `PKG_TSOP( `$1', `$2', `$3', 8, 199, 1969)');

Should be (I think):
define(`PKG_MSOP10', `PKG_TSOP( `$1', `$2', `$3', 10, 199, 1969)');

I'd upload a patch but I have no idea how :)

Bug sf-2) 5 pin small outline transistor (PKG_SOT25 and probably PKG_SOT325).

Background:
There are two flavours of 5 pin SMT transistor defined, a PKG_SMT_TRANSISTOR5 and a PKG_SMT_TRANSISTOR5A. The 5A package is used as a base for the PKG_SC70_5, while the 5 is used for PKG_SOT25 and PKG_SOT325. The difference appears to be which side of the IC has pin 1 (the side with 3 pins or the side with 2). The PKG_SMT_TRANSISTOR5A package puts pin one as the first pin on the side with 3 pins, while the PKG_SMT_TRANSISTOR5 puts pin one as the first pin on the side with 2 pins. In either case pins are numbered in the usual CCW manner.

I suppose that chips might exist in either configuration, but the only SOT25's that I have ever come across are PKG_SMT_TRANSISTOR5A style. See e.g. http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/ths3201.pdf

I haven't used an SOT325, but I suspect that they probably work the same way.

Fix:
Change the definition of the PKG_SOT25 (and probably PKG_SOT325) from PKG_SMT_TRANSISTOR5 to PKG_SMT_TRANSISTOR5A.

Tags: sf-bugs
Revision history for this message
Felix Ruoff (felixruoff) wrote :

First described bug is fixed with commit 3ab1189e23fcab3a88576874adaf316c369bfe13 at Fri, 11 Jan 2008 (wrong pinnumber of MSOP10).

Revision history for this message
Felix Ruoff (felixruoff) wrote :

Second bug is related to bug lp:699243. Therefor, I maked it as a duplicate, but if you like to solve this bug, the comment at the other but might be helpful. (I would do a patch myself, but I don't know anything about this footprint. Have never used one of them)

Revision history for this message
Bert Timmerman (bert-timmerman) wrote :

IMHO we better mark this one 'invalid' or 'won't fix', and unmark bug lp:699243 as "duplicate", and solve it.

Changed in pcb:
status: New → Won't Fix
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.