element14 Community
element14 Community
    Register Log In
  • Site
  • Search
  • Log In Register
  • Community Hub
    Community Hub
    • What's New on element14
    • Feedback and Support
    • Benefits of Membership
    • Personal Blogs
    • Members Area
    • Achievement Levels
  • Learn
    Learn
    • Ask an Expert
    • eBooks
    • element14 presents
    • Learning Center
    • Tech Spotlight
    • STEM Academy
    • Webinars, Training and Events
    • Learning Groups
  • Technologies
    Technologies
    • 3D Printing
    • FPGA
    • Industrial Automation
    • Internet of Things
    • Power & Energy
    • Sensors
    • Technology Groups
  • Challenges & Projects
    Challenges & Projects
    • Design Challenges
    • element14 presents Projects
    • Project14
    • Arduino Projects
    • Raspberry Pi Projects
    • Project Groups
  • Products
    Products
    • Arduino
    • Avnet & Tria Boards Community
    • Dev Tools
    • Manufacturers
    • Multicomp Pro
    • Product Groups
    • Raspberry Pi
    • RoadTests & Reviews
  • About Us
  • Store
    Store
    • Visit Your Store
    • Choose another store...
      • Europe
      •  Austria (German)
      •  Belgium (Dutch, French)
      •  Bulgaria (Bulgarian)
      •  Czech Republic (Czech)
      •  Denmark (Danish)
      •  Estonia (Estonian)
      •  Finland (Finnish)
      •  France (French)
      •  Germany (German)
      •  Hungary (Hungarian)
      •  Ireland
      •  Israel
      •  Italy (Italian)
      •  Latvia (Latvian)
      •  
      •  Lithuania (Lithuanian)
      •  Netherlands (Dutch)
      •  Norway (Norwegian)
      •  Poland (Polish)
      •  Portugal (Portuguese)
      •  Romania (Romanian)
      •  Russia (Russian)
      •  Slovakia (Slovak)
      •  Slovenia (Slovenian)
      •  Spain (Spanish)
      •  Sweden (Swedish)
      •  Switzerland(German, French)
      •  Turkey (Turkish)
      •  United Kingdom
      • Asia Pacific
      •  Australia
      •  China
      •  Hong Kong
      •  India
      • Japan
      •  Korea (Korean)
      •  Malaysia
      •  New Zealand
      •  Philippines
      •  Singapore
      •  Taiwan
      •  Thailand (Thai)
      • Vietnam
      • Americas
      •  Brazil (Portuguese)
      •  Canada
      •  Mexico (Spanish)
      •  United States
      Can't find the country/region you're looking for? Visit our export site or find a local distributor.
  • Translate
  • Profile
  • Settings
Autodesk EAGLE
  • Products
  • More
Autodesk EAGLE
EAGLE User Support (English) Creating a N/C "gate"
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • Documents
  • Events
  • Polls
  • Files
  • Members
  • Mentions
  • Sub-Groups
  • Tags
  • More
  • Cancel
  • New
Join Autodesk EAGLE to participate - click to join for free!
Actions
  • Share
  • More
  • Cancel
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 178 subscribers
  • Views 450 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Creating a N/C "gate"

Former Member
Former Member over 15 years ago

Greetings,

 

Some of the devices I'm using have a number of input-only pins with

internal pull-ups, so if the default state is what you want you can

leave the pin unconnected. Eagle properly complains about this situation

during the ERC.

 

There are a couple of ways to fix this. One is to change the direction

of the pin to "NC" in the library, but then if you decide to connect the

pin you'll have to change the library. This won't work at all if you

have multiple instantiations of the device.

 

Another way to fix it is to change the direction to "I/O", but then the

ERC won't know if you really intended to connect the pin or not. I like

letting the tools help me find my mistakes whenever possible.

 

Usually I'll just put a "N/C" text label on the schematic so I know to

approve this situation during the ERC, but I've seen other tools that

allow marking a pin N/C. I know there have been discussions here over

the years on how to do this in Eagle, but I never saw a good solution. I

think I just found one.

 

I'm using Eagle 5.10.0, in case this makes a difference.

 

What I did was this:

 

1) Create a new package called "NC" with a single SMD pad of size 0.0 x

0.0. Make sure the pad is on top of the package origin. You can put a

small mark on top of the pad on the tDocu layer to make it easier to

place because the pad itself won't be visible on the board, only its

origin. I named the pad "N/C".

 

2) Create a new symbol called "NC" with a single pin with type "PAS"

(passive).

 

3) Create a new device called "NC" using this package and symbol.

Connect the pin to the pad. I also fiddled with the visibility so only

the pad name at the end of the pin showed up and not the pin number

above the pin. Give the device a prefix like "NC". Set the value off.

 

4) On the schematic I add one of these NC devices next to each input I

don't want connected. Connect the input to the "N/C" pin with a net. It

sounds a bit counter-intuitive, but it looks good visually and makes the

ERC happy.

 

5) On the board I get an origin cross and the tDocu mark for each NC

device off to the side with the other unplaced components. Place the NC

component on top of or adjacent to the device pin. I was sort-of

expecting a DRC "overlap" error but that doesn't happen. Connect the NC

"pad" to the component pin with a short trace to eliminate the airwire.

Zero-width traces generate DRC errors so just use something acceptable

to the DRC; if you've put the NC device on top of the pad this trace

won't even be visible.

 

It's a little bit more work, but the result looks good, and avoids

having to approve ERC errors. I'd rather CadSoft provided a mechanism to

mark inputs and outputs as N/C explicitly, but this seems to handle the

situation reasonably.

 

Suggestions and comments are encouraged!

 

  • Sign in to reply
  • Cancel
  • Former Member
    Former Member over 15 years ago

    On 11/22/2010 8:51 AM, Reece R. Pollack wrote:

    Greetings,

     

    Some of the devices I'm using have a number of input-only pins with

    internal pull-ups, so if the default state is what you want you can

    leave the pin unconnected. Eagle properly complains about this situation

    during the ERC.

     

    There are a couple of ways to fix this. One is to change the direction

    of the pin to "NC" in the library, but then if you decide to connect the

    pin you'll have to change the library. This won't work at all if you

    have multiple instantiations of the device.

     

    Another way to fix it is to change the direction to "I/O", but then the

    ERC won't know if you really intended to connect the pin or not. I like

    letting the tools help me find my mistakes whenever possible.

     

    Usually I'll just put a "N/C" text label on the schematic so I know to

    approve this situation during the ERC, but I've seen other tools that

    allow marking a pin N/C. I know there have been discussions here over

    the years on how to do this in Eagle, but I never saw a good solution. I

    think I just found one.

     

    I'm using Eagle 5.10.0, in case this makes a difference.

     

    What I did was this:

     

    1) Create a new package called "NC" with a single SMD pad of size 0.0 x

    0.0. Make sure the pad is on top of the package origin. You can put a

    small mark on top of the pad on the tDocu layer to make it easier to

    place because the pad itself won't be visible on the board, only its

    origin. I named the pad "N/C".

     

    2) Create a new symbol called "NC" with a single pin with type "PAS"

    (passive).

     

    3) Create a new device called "NC" using this package and symbol.

    Connect the pin to the pad. I also fiddled with the visibility so only

    the pad name at the end of the pin showed up and not the pin number

    above the pin. Give the device a prefix like "NC". Set the value off.

     

    4) On the schematic I add one of these NC devices next to each input I

    don't want connected. Connect the input to the "N/C" pin with a net. It

    sounds a bit counter-intuitive, but it looks good visually and makes the

    ERC happy.

     

    5) On the board I get an origin cross and the tDocu mark for each NC

    device off to the side with the other unplaced components. Place the NC

    component on top of or adjacent to the device pin. I was sort-of

    expecting a DRC "overlap" error but that doesn't happen. Connect the NC

    "pad" to the component pin with a short trace to eliminate the airwire.

    Zero-width traces generate DRC errors so just use something acceptable

    to the DRC; if you've put the NC device on top of the pad this trace

    won't even be visible.

     

    It's a little bit more work, but the result looks good, and avoids

    having to approve ERC errors. I'd rather CadSoft provided a mechanism to

    mark inputs and outputs as N/C explicitly, but this seems to handle the

    situation reasonably.

     

    Suggestions and comments are encouraged!

    well, it's a case where having parts that did not need a footprint would

    make the workaround perfect. but like you, i'd rather see a native nc

    that could be placed on any pin or net that was meant to be nc.

     

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Cancel
  • Former Member
    Former Member over 15 years ago

    On 11/22/2010 11:51 AM, Reece R. Pollack wrote:

    Greetings,

     

    Some of the devices I'm using have a number of input-only pins with

    internal pull-ups, so if the default state is what you want you can

    leave the pin unconnected. Eagle properly complains about this situation

    during the ERC.

     

    There are a couple of ways to fix this. One is to change the direction

    of the pin to "NC" in the library, but then if you decide to connect the

    pin you'll have to change the library. This won't work at all if you

    have multiple instantiations of the device.

     

    Another way to fix it is to change the direction to "I/O", but then the

    ERC won't know if you really intended to connect the pin or not. I like

    letting the tools help me find my mistakes whenever possible.

     

    Usually I'll just put a "N/C" text label on the schematic so I know to

    approve this situation during the ERC, but I've seen other tools that

    allow marking a pin N/C. I know there have been discussions here over

    the years on how to do this in Eagle, but I never saw a good solution. I

    think I just found one.

     

    I'm using Eagle 5.10.0, in case this makes a difference.

     

    What I did was this:

     

    1) Create a new package called "NC" with a single SMD pad of size 0.0 x

    0.0. Make sure the pad is on top of the package origin. You can put a

    small mark on top of the pad on the tDocu layer to make it easier to

    place because the pad itself won't be visible on the board, only its

    origin. I named the pad "N/C".

     

    2) Create a new symbol called "NC" with a single pin with type "PAS"

    (passive).

     

    3) Create a new device called "NC" using this package and symbol.

    Connect the pin to the pad. I also fiddled with the visibility so only

    the pad name at the end of the pin showed up and not the pin number

    above the pin. Give the device a prefix like "NC". Set the value off.

     

    4) On the schematic I add one of these NC devices next to each input I

    don't want connected. Connect the input to the "N/C" pin with a net. It

    sounds a bit counter-intuitive, but it looks good visually and makes the

    ERC happy.

     

    5) On the board I get an origin cross and the tDocu mark for each NC

    device off to the side with the other unplaced components. Place the NC

    component on top of or adjacent to the device pin. I was sort-of

    expecting a DRC "overlap" error but that doesn't happen. Connect the NC

    "pad" to the component pin with a short trace to eliminate the airwire.

    Zero-width traces generate DRC errors so just use something acceptable

    to the DRC; if you've put the NC device on top of the pad this trace

    won't even be visible.

     

    It's a little bit more work, but the result looks good, and avoids

    having to approve ERC errors. I'd rather CadSoft provided a mechanism to

    mark inputs and outputs as N/C explicitly, but this seems to handle the

    situation reasonably.

     

    Suggestions and comments are encouraged!

    If the designed in part has an input that can be used and ever needs to

    be used I found the hard way that having a pad to solder to is much

    easier then to the pin of the IC.

    So any unused pins terminate to a test pad that a wire wrap could be

    connected after the board is populated.

    Paul R.

     

     

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Sign in to reply
    • Cancel
element14 Community

element14 is the first online community specifically for engineers. Connect with your peers and get expert answers to your questions.

  • Members
  • Learn
  • Technologies
  • Challenges & Projects
  • Products
  • Store
  • About Us
  • Feedback & Support
  • FAQs
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal and Copyright Notices
  • Sitemap
  • Cookies

An Avnet Company © 2025 Premier Farnell Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Premier Farnell Ltd, registered in England and Wales (no 00876412), registered office: Farnell House, Forge Lane, Leeds LS12 2NE.

ICP 备案号 10220084.

Follow element14

  • X
  • Facebook
  • linkedin
  • YouTube