Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

drc: consider using naming convention / scoping to differentiate between global and local layers #77

Open
proppy opened this issue Jun 12, 2023 · 0 comments

Comments

@proppy
Copy link
Member

proppy commented Jun 12, 2023

Currently most DRC check manipulate two types of layer:

  • local layers, prefixed with the rule name and .forgeted at the end of the rule
  • global layers, with no particulat naming convention and .forgeted at the end of the deck

I wonder if it would make sense to adopt a naming convention to differentiate between the two or even better implement each rule in a separate function w/ a block so that it can be explicit the scoping ex:

def mimtm3_l1(fusetop, mimtm_virtual)
  mimtm3_l1 = fusetop.enclosed(mimtm_virtual, 0.6.um).polygons(0.001.um)
  mimtm3_l2 = fusetop.not_inside(mimtm_virtual)
  mimtm3_l = mimtm3_l1.join(mimtm3_l2)
  yield mimtm3_l
end
mimtm3_l1(fusetop, mimtm_virtual) { |violations| violations.output('MIMTM.3', 'MIMTM.3 : Minimum MiM bottom plate overlap of Top plate: 0.6um') }
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant