The following three microchip devices here:
- PIC10F200/2-?/MC
- PIC10F204/6-?/MC
- PIC10(L)F32x(T)-?/MC
...use the MC style package. However, I think the wrong package was generated and used in LibrePCB:
This is the DFN50P200X300X90-8T175X145 package. However, the MC style package by microchip has the thermal pad the other way around, so the correct package wound be DFN50P200X300X90-8T145X175. It's a very subtle difference, and the fact that the footprint is rotated by 90° in the datasheet doesn't make it easier to spot.
This also matches with the PIC datasheet (T2 > W2).
@HBadertscher can you confirm this?
The easiest fix here would be to adjust and rename the package linked with this UUID, but that might break other uses outside the standard library (even if incredibly improbable). The correct way would probably be a new package, and then updating the package of the device.
@ubruhin what are the implications of a device package change? Can we even do that without breaking things?
The following three microchip devices here:
...use the MC style package. However, I think the wrong package was generated and used in LibrePCB:
This is the DFN50P200X300X90-8T175X145 package. However, the MC style package by microchip has the thermal pad the other way around, so the correct package wound be DFN50P200X300X90-8T145X175. It's a very subtle difference, and the fact that the footprint is rotated by 90° in the datasheet doesn't make it easier to spot.
This also matches with the PIC datasheet (T2 > W2).
@HBadertscher can you confirm this?
The easiest fix here would be to adjust and rename the package linked with this UUID, but that might break other uses outside the standard library (even if incredibly improbable). The correct way would probably be a new package, and then updating the package of the device.
@ubruhin what are the implications of a device package change? Can we even do that without breaking things?