shield pins in connectors/transformers/... -> KLC

[jkriege2]

We should set a standard for the numbering/naming of shield-pins, add that to KLC and finally modify all symbols/footprints to adhere to that rule. The three options out there are currently (scanning through symbols AND footprints):

1. pin named SH (generic shielded connector symbols) ... are there footprints using that?
2. pin named 0 (D-SUB-symbols with shield, all new D-SUB-footprints)
3. the highest pin-number (as done for EPs), which can be found in many footprints (e.g. USB, HDMI) and the matching symbols in Connector.lib.

I would like to use either option 1 or 2. What do you all think?

Also we should keep in mind that this rule can then also be used for these types of devices:

• transformers with shielding
• crystals (metal-cans can be soldered to the PCB)
• maybe metal-can-transistors, wlthough I don't know why one should solder them to PCB
• any other part with shielding
• metal-shields from RF_Shield.pretty

[poeschlr]

We might not find a one size fits all scheme here.

I would say for components that do not define a pin number in the datasheet we should go with "SH" for the pin number. (Most connector footprints will fall into this category.)

Another definition would be: footprints that are intended to be used with generic symbols use the pin number SH, footprints intended for specialized symbols (atomic) should go with datasheet numbering (if it exists, otherwise SH)

For "generic" connector footprints it might also be necessary to add either a suffix or maybe even better -[num of uniquely named shield pins]SH to the pin name after the pin count specifier. (Specialized connector footprints not have the pin count in the name. Example USB connectors. So they also do not need to specify that there is a shield pin.)

This is to allow correct footprint filtering.