Schematic conventions for different supply rails
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I have two ICs in my circuit. They have different supply voltages, 3.3 and 2.7 volts. The voltages are subject to change as we refine the design. I'm trying to come up with labels for these rails. One common convention I see is to use the voltage, so one becomes 3V3 and the other 2V7, but the voltage per se is irrelevant and may change as the design develops.
Is there a convention that would capture the rail's purpose instead of the voltage? It's common to see VBAT, VREG, VIN, etc., but VU1 looks weird.
schematics
asked Mar 14 at 7:51
iteriter
1826
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I have two ICs in my circuit. They have different supply voltages, 3.3 and 2.7 volts. The voltages are subject to change as we refine the design. I'm trying to come up with labels for these rails. One common convention I see is to use the voltage, so one becomes 3V3 and the other 2V7, but the voltage per se is irrelevant and may change as the design develops.
Is there a convention that would capture the rail's purpose instead of the voltage? It's common to see VBAT, VREG, VIN, etc., but VU1 looks weird.
schematics
asked Mar 14 at 7:51
iteriter
1826
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
You mean VU1 as in voltage of the IC U1? Often, you may also see a combination of the two conventions you mentioned, using $sign$voltage_$purpose, e.g. +3V3_IO, +5V0_USB or -12V_ANALOG
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:06
$begingroup$
No, OP means that there are two or more bus voltages that feed multiple devices each.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
Mar 14 at 8:11
$begingroup$
@Transistor I got this one, but it's unclear to me what he wants to express with the label VU1, which he says it looks weird.
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:21
$begingroup$
Name it after what it's supposed to supply. If it is supplying digital logic then it should have a name like 3V3. It's not a big deal to change the signal name later, if you change the voltage.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
Mar 14 at 13:27
1
$begingroup$
Adding an underscore after theVmay help.V_USBis clearer thanVUSB, and evenV_U1would be pretty clear with the underscore though I think naming the chip by function would be better.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Mar 14 at 15:37
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I have two ICs in my circuit. They have different supply voltages, 3.3 and 2.7 volts. The voltages are subject to change as we refine the design. I'm trying to come up with labels for these rails. One common convention I see is to use the voltage, so one becomes 3V3 and the other 2V7, but the voltage per se is irrelevant and may change as the design develops.
Is there a convention that would capture the rail's purpose instead of the voltage? It's common to see VBAT, VREG, VIN, etc., but VU1 looks weird.
schematics
asked Mar 14 at 7:51
iteriter
1826
$endgroup$
I have two ICs in my circuit. They have different supply voltages, 3.3 and 2.7 volts. The voltages are subject to change as we refine the design. I'm trying to come up with labels for these rails. One common convention I see is to use the voltage, so one becomes 3V3 and the other 2V7, but the voltage per se is irrelevant and may change as the design develops.
Is there a convention that would capture the rail's purpose instead of the voltage? It's common to see VBAT, VREG, VIN, etc., but VU1 looks weird.
schematics
schematics
asked Mar 14 at 7:51
iteriter
1826
asked Mar 14 at 7:51
iteriter
1826
asked Mar 14 at 7:51
iteriter
1826
asked Mar 14 at 7:51
iteriter
1826
asked Mar 14 at 7:51
iteriter
1826
1826
4
$begingroup$
You mean VU1 as in voltage of the IC U1? Often, you may also see a combination of the two conventions you mentioned, using $sign$voltage_$purpose, e.g. +3V3_IO, +5V0_USB or -12V_ANALOG
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:06
$begingroup$
No, OP means that there are two or more bus voltages that feed multiple devices each.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
Mar 14 at 8:11
$begingroup$
@Transistor I got this one, but it's unclear to me what he wants to express with the label VU1, which he says it looks weird.
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:21
$begingroup$
Name it after what it's supposed to supply. If it is supplying digital logic then it should have a name like 3V3. It's not a big deal to change the signal name later, if you change the voltage.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
Mar 14 at 13:27
1
$begingroup$
Adding an underscore after theVmay help.V_USBis clearer thanVUSB, and evenV_U1would be pretty clear with the underscore though I think naming the chip by function would be better.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Mar 14 at 15:37
|
show 2 more comments
4
$begingroup$
You mean VU1 as in voltage of the IC U1? Often, you may also see a combination of the two conventions you mentioned, using $sign$voltage_$purpose, e.g. +3V3_IO, +5V0_USB or -12V_ANALOG
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:06
$begingroup$
No, OP means that there are two or more bus voltages that feed multiple devices each.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
Mar 14 at 8:11
$begingroup$
@Transistor I got this one, but it's unclear to me what he wants to express with the label VU1, which he says it looks weird.
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:21
$begingroup$
Name it after what it's supposed to supply. If it is supplying digital logic then it should have a name like 3V3. It's not a big deal to change the signal name later, if you change the voltage.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
Mar 14 at 13:27
1
$begingroup$
Adding an underscore after theVmay help.V_USBis clearer thanVUSB, and evenV_U1would be pretty clear with the underscore though I think naming the chip by function would be better.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Mar 14 at 15:37
4
4
$begingroup$
You mean VU1 as in voltage of the IC U1? Often, you may also see a combination of the two conventions you mentioned, using $sign$voltage_$purpose, e.g. +3V3_IO, +5V0_USB or -12V_ANALOG
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:06
$begingroup$
You mean VU1 as in voltage of the IC U1? Often, you may also see a combination of the two conventions you mentioned, using $sign$voltage_$purpose, e.g. +3V3_IO, +5V0_USB or -12V_ANALOG
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:06
$begingroup$
No, OP means that there are two or more bus voltages that feed multiple devices each.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
Mar 14 at 8:11
$begingroup$
No, OP means that there are two or more bus voltages that feed multiple devices each.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
Mar 14 at 8:11
$begingroup$
@Transistor I got this one, but it's unclear to me what he wants to express with the label VU1, which he says it looks weird.
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:21
$begingroup$
@Transistor I got this one, but it's unclear to me what he wants to express with the label VU1, which he says it looks weird.
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:21
$begingroup$
Name it after what it's supposed to supply. If it is supplying digital logic then it should have a name like 3V3. It's not a big deal to change the signal name later, if you change the voltage.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
Mar 14 at 13:27
$begingroup$
Name it after what it's supposed to supply. If it is supplying digital logic then it should have a name like 3V3. It's not a big deal to change the signal name later, if you change the voltage.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
Mar 14 at 13:27
1
1
$begingroup$
Adding an underscore after the
V may help. V_USB is clearer than VUSB, and even V_U1 would be pretty clear with the underscore though I think naming the chip by function would be better.$endgroup$
– supercat
Mar 14 at 15:37
$begingroup$
Adding an underscore after the
V may help. V_USB is clearer than VUSB, and even V_U1 would be pretty clear with the underscore though I think naming the chip by function would be better.$endgroup$
– supercat
Mar 14 at 15:37
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Naming of things is an important topic. Software people perhaps discuss them more than most, as they have lots of variables and functions to name. Fortunately, you have only a handful.
Names have to meet a number of requirements.
Be meaningful - you shouldn't have to look it up in a cross reference to understand it.
Not cause confusion - not only be unique in scope but also not share too many leading characters with other names
Be easy to use - a 50 character descriptive name takes a long time to read, and is easily mis-typed
Not look weird? I don't think so. Who are you doing this schematic for? It's not to look pretty, it's to be correct. If you have an unusual requirement of several rails, all of about 3v, that you must not get mixed up, then weird looking names might be an asset rather than a liability.
There are conventions, like VCC and 3v3, which are not applicable to your situation. So you need to identify the function of these two rails, in a way that's meaningful to you, won't confuse you, and will tolerate small changes to the voltage later. Are they '3v_and_a_bit' and 'nearly_3v', or '3v_logic' and '3v_memory', or '3v_DSP' and '3v_analogue'. I'd often have rails like '3v3_raw', 3v3_filt1' and '3v3_filt2' when using supply filters to stop parts interfering with each other via the rails.
edited Mar 14 at 15:15
Dave Tweed♦
124k10153269
answered Mar 14 at 10:10
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79k285182
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm software people. I talk a lot about naming things. Like Phil Karlton.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:16
1
$begingroup$
Most but not all important schematics have a NOTES: section where common themes are defined, such as all resistors are 1/4 watt 1% unless otherwise noted. Vcc=+15V, Vee=-15V, etc. Orcad/Allegro has plenty of power and ground symbols, which can be assigned any meaningful value.
$endgroup$
– Sparky256
Mar 15 at 1:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Refactoring
Although names are important, as Neil_UK writes in his answer, your main issue seems to be this:
the voltage per se is irrelevant and may change as the design develops
Neil_UK makes a reference to software development, and I will make another one: The solution to changing parameters is to refactor. If your rail changes from 3.3 volt to 3.0 volt, just change the name of the net. Since your new rail obviously changed due to a new or replaced component, you already had to make a lot of changes. A global search-and-replace on a net name is minor in comparison.
If you're nice to your future self you will mark this change in a changelog, preferably on the schematic, just as you would if you change the value of a component between revisions. This makes a change even less confusing.
answered Mar 14 at 10:32
pipepipe
10.3k42659
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The problem isn't that the voltage may change. The problem is that we have two separate VDD rails. The refactoring that's coming is that we may end up both parts from the same regulator, or may end up having two separate ones. It's easy to replace the labels on a net. It's a lot more work to tear a single VDD rail into two.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:18
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
StackExchange.schematics.init();
);
, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f427181%2fschematic-conventions-for-different-supply-rails%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Naming of things is an important topic. Software people perhaps discuss them more than most, as they have lots of variables and functions to name. Fortunately, you have only a handful.
Names have to meet a number of requirements.
Be meaningful - you shouldn't have to look it up in a cross reference to understand it.
Not cause confusion - not only be unique in scope but also not share too many leading characters with other names
Be easy to use - a 50 character descriptive name takes a long time to read, and is easily mis-typed
Not look weird? I don't think so. Who are you doing this schematic for? It's not to look pretty, it's to be correct. If you have an unusual requirement of several rails, all of about 3v, that you must not get mixed up, then weird looking names might be an asset rather than a liability.
There are conventions, like VCC and 3v3, which are not applicable to your situation. So you need to identify the function of these two rails, in a way that's meaningful to you, won't confuse you, and will tolerate small changes to the voltage later. Are they '3v_and_a_bit' and 'nearly_3v', or '3v_logic' and '3v_memory', or '3v_DSP' and '3v_analogue'. I'd often have rails like '3v3_raw', 3v3_filt1' and '3v3_filt2' when using supply filters to stop parts interfering with each other via the rails.
edited Mar 14 at 15:15
Dave Tweed♦
124k10153269
answered Mar 14 at 10:10
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79k285182
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm software people. I talk a lot about naming things. Like Phil Karlton.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:16
1
$begingroup$
Most but not all important schematics have a NOTES: section where common themes are defined, such as all resistors are 1/4 watt 1% unless otherwise noted. Vcc=+15V, Vee=-15V, etc. Orcad/Allegro has plenty of power and ground symbols, which can be assigned any meaningful value.
$endgroup$
– Sparky256
Mar 15 at 1:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Naming of things is an important topic. Software people perhaps discuss them more than most, as they have lots of variables and functions to name. Fortunately, you have only a handful.
Names have to meet a number of requirements.
Be meaningful - you shouldn't have to look it up in a cross reference to understand it.
Not cause confusion - not only be unique in scope but also not share too many leading characters with other names
Be easy to use - a 50 character descriptive name takes a long time to read, and is easily mis-typed
Not look weird? I don't think so. Who are you doing this schematic for? It's not to look pretty, it's to be correct. If you have an unusual requirement of several rails, all of about 3v, that you must not get mixed up, then weird looking names might be an asset rather than a liability.
There are conventions, like VCC and 3v3, which are not applicable to your situation. So you need to identify the function of these two rails, in a way that's meaningful to you, won't confuse you, and will tolerate small changes to the voltage later. Are they '3v_and_a_bit' and 'nearly_3v', or '3v_logic' and '3v_memory', or '3v_DSP' and '3v_analogue'. I'd often have rails like '3v3_raw', 3v3_filt1' and '3v3_filt2' when using supply filters to stop parts interfering with each other via the rails.
edited Mar 14 at 15:15
Dave Tweed♦
124k10153269
answered Mar 14 at 10:10
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79k285182
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm software people. I talk a lot about naming things. Like Phil Karlton.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:16
1
$begingroup$
Most but not all important schematics have a NOTES: section where common themes are defined, such as all resistors are 1/4 watt 1% unless otherwise noted. Vcc=+15V, Vee=-15V, etc. Orcad/Allegro has plenty of power and ground symbols, which can be assigned any meaningful value.
$endgroup$
– Sparky256
Mar 15 at 1:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Naming of things is an important topic. Software people perhaps discuss them more than most, as they have lots of variables and functions to name. Fortunately, you have only a handful.
Names have to meet a number of requirements.
Be meaningful - you shouldn't have to look it up in a cross reference to understand it.
Not cause confusion - not only be unique in scope but also not share too many leading characters with other names
Be easy to use - a 50 character descriptive name takes a long time to read, and is easily mis-typed
Not look weird? I don't think so. Who are you doing this schematic for? It's not to look pretty, it's to be correct. If you have an unusual requirement of several rails, all of about 3v, that you must not get mixed up, then weird looking names might be an asset rather than a liability.
There are conventions, like VCC and 3v3, which are not applicable to your situation. So you need to identify the function of these two rails, in a way that's meaningful to you, won't confuse you, and will tolerate small changes to the voltage later. Are they '3v_and_a_bit' and 'nearly_3v', or '3v_logic' and '3v_memory', or '3v_DSP' and '3v_analogue'. I'd often have rails like '3v3_raw', 3v3_filt1' and '3v3_filt2' when using supply filters to stop parts interfering with each other via the rails.
edited Mar 14 at 15:15
Dave Tweed♦
124k10153269
answered Mar 14 at 10:10
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79k285182
$endgroup$
Naming of things is an important topic. Software people perhaps discuss them more than most, as they have lots of variables and functions to name. Fortunately, you have only a handful.
Names have to meet a number of requirements.
Be meaningful - you shouldn't have to look it up in a cross reference to understand it.
Not cause confusion - not only be unique in scope but also not share too many leading characters with other names
Be easy to use - a 50 character descriptive name takes a long time to read, and is easily mis-typed
Not look weird? I don't think so. Who are you doing this schematic for? It's not to look pretty, it's to be correct. If you have an unusual requirement of several rails, all of about 3v, that you must not get mixed up, then weird looking names might be an asset rather than a liability.
There are conventions, like VCC and 3v3, which are not applicable to your situation. So you need to identify the function of these two rails, in a way that's meaningful to you, won't confuse you, and will tolerate small changes to the voltage later. Are they '3v_and_a_bit' and 'nearly_3v', or '3v_logic' and '3v_memory', or '3v_DSP' and '3v_analogue'. I'd often have rails like '3v3_raw', 3v3_filt1' and '3v3_filt2' when using supply filters to stop parts interfering with each other via the rails.
edited Mar 14 at 15:15
Dave Tweed♦
124k10153269
answered Mar 14 at 10:10
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79k285182
edited Mar 14 at 15:15
Dave Tweed♦
124k10153269
edited Mar 14 at 15:15
Dave Tweed♦
124k10153269
edited Mar 14 at 15:15
Dave Tweed♦
124k10153269
124k10153269
answered Mar 14 at 10:10
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79k285182
answered Mar 14 at 10:10
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79k285182
answered Mar 14 at 10:10
Neil_UKNeil_UK
79k285182
79k285182
$begingroup$
I'm software people. I talk a lot about naming things. Like Phil Karlton.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:16
1
$begingroup$
Most but not all important schematics have a NOTES: section where common themes are defined, such as all resistors are 1/4 watt 1% unless otherwise noted. Vcc=+15V, Vee=-15V, etc. Orcad/Allegro has plenty of power and ground symbols, which can be assigned any meaningful value.
$endgroup$
– Sparky256
Mar 15 at 1:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm software people. I talk a lot about naming things. Like Phil Karlton.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:16
1
$begingroup$
Most but not all important schematics have a NOTES: section where common themes are defined, such as all resistors are 1/4 watt 1% unless otherwise noted. Vcc=+15V, Vee=-15V, etc. Orcad/Allegro has plenty of power and ground symbols, which can be assigned any meaningful value.
$endgroup$
– Sparky256
Mar 15 at 1:24
$begingroup$
I'm software people. I talk a lot about naming things. Like Phil Karlton.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:16
$begingroup$
I'm software people. I talk a lot about naming things. Like Phil Karlton.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:16
1
1
$begingroup$
Most but not all important schematics have a NOTES: section where common themes are defined, such as all resistors are 1/4 watt 1% unless otherwise noted. Vcc=+15V, Vee=-15V, etc. Orcad/Allegro has plenty of power and ground symbols, which can be assigned any meaningful value.
$endgroup$
– Sparky256
Mar 15 at 1:24
$begingroup$
Most but not all important schematics have a NOTES: section where common themes are defined, such as all resistors are 1/4 watt 1% unless otherwise noted. Vcc=+15V, Vee=-15V, etc. Orcad/Allegro has plenty of power and ground symbols, which can be assigned any meaningful value.
$endgroup$
– Sparky256
Mar 15 at 1:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Refactoring
Although names are important, as Neil_UK writes in his answer, your main issue seems to be this:
the voltage per se is irrelevant and may change as the design develops
Neil_UK makes a reference to software development, and I will make another one: The solution to changing parameters is to refactor. If your rail changes from 3.3 volt to 3.0 volt, just change the name of the net. Since your new rail obviously changed due to a new or replaced component, you already had to make a lot of changes. A global search-and-replace on a net name is minor in comparison.
If you're nice to your future self you will mark this change in a changelog, preferably on the schematic, just as you would if you change the value of a component between revisions. This makes a change even less confusing.
answered Mar 14 at 10:32
pipepipe
10.3k42659
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The problem isn't that the voltage may change. The problem is that we have two separate VDD rails. The refactoring that's coming is that we may end up both parts from the same regulator, or may end up having two separate ones. It's easy to replace the labels on a net. It's a lot more work to tear a single VDD rail into two.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Refactoring
Although names are important, as Neil_UK writes in his answer, your main issue seems to be this:
the voltage per se is irrelevant and may change as the design develops
Neil_UK makes a reference to software development, and I will make another one: The solution to changing parameters is to refactor. If your rail changes from 3.3 volt to 3.0 volt, just change the name of the net. Since your new rail obviously changed due to a new or replaced component, you already had to make a lot of changes. A global search-and-replace on a net name is minor in comparison.
If you're nice to your future self you will mark this change in a changelog, preferably on the schematic, just as you would if you change the value of a component between revisions. This makes a change even less confusing.
answered Mar 14 at 10:32
pipepipe
10.3k42659
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The problem isn't that the voltage may change. The problem is that we have two separate VDD rails. The refactoring that's coming is that we may end up both parts from the same regulator, or may end up having two separate ones. It's easy to replace the labels on a net. It's a lot more work to tear a single VDD rail into two.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Refactoring
Although names are important, as Neil_UK writes in his answer, your main issue seems to be this:
the voltage per se is irrelevant and may change as the design develops
Neil_UK makes a reference to software development, and I will make another one: The solution to changing parameters is to refactor. If your rail changes from 3.3 volt to 3.0 volt, just change the name of the net. Since your new rail obviously changed due to a new or replaced component, you already had to make a lot of changes. A global search-and-replace on a net name is minor in comparison.
If you're nice to your future self you will mark this change in a changelog, preferably on the schematic, just as you would if you change the value of a component between revisions. This makes a change even less confusing.
answered Mar 14 at 10:32
pipepipe
10.3k42659
$endgroup$
Refactoring
Although names are important, as Neil_UK writes in his answer, your main issue seems to be this:
the voltage per se is irrelevant and may change as the design develops
Neil_UK makes a reference to software development, and I will make another one: The solution to changing parameters is to refactor. If your rail changes from 3.3 volt to 3.0 volt, just change the name of the net. Since your new rail obviously changed due to a new or replaced component, you already had to make a lot of changes. A global search-and-replace on a net name is minor in comparison.
If you're nice to your future self you will mark this change in a changelog, preferably on the schematic, just as you would if you change the value of a component between revisions. This makes a change even less confusing.
answered Mar 14 at 10:32
pipepipe
10.3k42659
answered Mar 14 at 10:32
pipepipe
10.3k42659
answered Mar 14 at 10:32
pipepipe
10.3k42659
answered Mar 14 at 10:32
pipepipe
10.3k42659
10.3k42659
$begingroup$
The problem isn't that the voltage may change. The problem is that we have two separate VDD rails. The refactoring that's coming is that we may end up both parts from the same regulator, or may end up having two separate ones. It's easy to replace the labels on a net. It's a lot more work to tear a single VDD rail into two.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem isn't that the voltage may change. The problem is that we have two separate VDD rails. The refactoring that's coming is that we may end up both parts from the same regulator, or may end up having two separate ones. It's easy to replace the labels on a net. It's a lot more work to tear a single VDD rail into two.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:18
$begingroup$
The problem isn't that the voltage may change. The problem is that we have two separate VDD rails. The refactoring that's coming is that we may end up both parts from the same regulator, or may end up having two separate ones. It's easy to replace the labels on a net. It's a lot more work to tear a single VDD rail into two.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:18
$begingroup$
The problem isn't that the voltage may change. The problem is that we have two separate VDD rails. The refactoring that's coming is that we may end up both parts from the same regulator, or may end up having two separate ones. It's easy to replace the labels on a net. It's a lot more work to tear a single VDD rail into two.
$endgroup$
– iter
Mar 14 at 17:18
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f427181%2fschematic-conventions-for-different-supply-rails%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
$begingroup$
You mean VU1 as in voltage of the IC U1? Often, you may also see a combination of the two conventions you mentioned, using $sign$voltage_$purpose, e.g. +3V3_IO, +5V0_USB or -12V_ANALOG
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:06
$begingroup$
No, OP means that there are two or more bus voltages that feed multiple devices each.
$endgroup$
– Transistor
Mar 14 at 8:11
$begingroup$
@Transistor I got this one, but it's unclear to me what he wants to express with the label VU1, which he says it looks weird.
$endgroup$
– Manu3l0us
Mar 14 at 8:21
$begingroup$
Name it after what it's supposed to supply. If it is supplying digital logic then it should have a name like 3V3. It's not a big deal to change the signal name later, if you change the voltage.
$endgroup$
– Lundin
Mar 14 at 13:27
1
$begingroup$
Adding an underscore after the
Vmay help.V_USBis clearer thanVUSB, and evenV_U1would be pretty clear with the underscore though I think naming the chip by function would be better.$endgroup$
– supercat
Mar 14 at 15:37