How to Map Symbol to specific schematic view using SKILL

Hi Kevin,

Your question is not clear, what mapping are you talking about? Are you talking about netlisting? You should be able to use the Hierarchy Editor to select which view is used when you have two or more views for the same cell. It might be easier to have separate cells each with schematic/symbol views and differentiate based on the cell name ?  If this doesn't help you will need to supply more information to clarify your issue and question.

Best regards,

Lawrence.

Kevin,

As Lawrence said, there really isn't a "mapping" between a specific symbol view of the cell and a specific schematic view of the cell. That's not how it works.

In general, when your design has an instance of a symbol (it doesn't matter too much what it is called), the various netlisters use the concept of a "switch view list" to determine which view it should descend into when expanding the hierarchy. This is an ordered list of view names, and it will switch into the first that it finds. Then if that found view is in the "stop view list", it stops expanding the hierarchy - normally for primitive devices.

In this case, if your design has instances of the symbol and symbol_lvs views, it would still pick the same schematic to descend into for each - which would be "schematic" (most likely) or "schematic_lvs" (if the switch view list had been adapted).

The hierarchy editor allows you to alter this default binding. You can define the binding based on the cell (so still the instances of symbol and symbol_lvs are indistinguishable; this is why Lawrence suggested maybe having a different cell, because then the bindings could easily be different per cell). You can also do it based on instances (and occurrences, but I won't explain that here). You could then in the tree table in the hierarchy editor select all the instances you want to bind to schematic_lvs, and then with the right mouse button pick the view to use as "schematic_lvs".

Of course, we may have completely misinterpreted your intentions because your description was not exactly awash with details!

Regards,

Andrew.