BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
banedon wrote:
Ok here's my current layout. It's a 4 layer board wit the VCC and GND hidden. I've still got to route a few more tracks(they are the ultra thin yellow lines), but most of it's done. I used the remaining two tracks to route all the signals with a very occasionally dip into the VCC or GND layers when there wasn't a more feasible route.
What do people think?
Why are you qualifying
/RAM_SEL with Ø2?
So that it will only enable the RAM on the rising edge of Ø2. The address decoding scheme is from Gareth's Primer as I wanted a bit of speed and didn't want to us e a decoder or (C)PLD.
I don't have any real experience of PCB routing so I uased the defaults given to me for track thickness, etc. by Eagle. However, doesn't the extra copper in thicker tracks help over come resistance?
barrym95838 wrote:
You made some interesting component placement choices, which seem (to this untrained eye) to be causing a longer-than-necessary average trace length. Was this placement random, or was it affected by external constraints, like edge connector placement?
Mike
I needed to keep the core signalling components in the centre as they communicate with most other devices. The power can be (and will be) moved to the emptier end of the board - unless this is a bad idea. It got moved to where iot currently is from when i was ghoing to create a star ground setup.
Another issue was that I wanted a little extra space for routing the buses as I found that I ran out of space when I tried routing this board before. This might now not be an issue if I drop the trace thicknesses...