Open fauxpark opened 5 years ago
Great question!
I can recall a few situations where height was noted as a differentiator and so changed from the default "QFN", but in general I don't know where we stand. Since the 3D models are correlated to the footprints it will give a more appropriate 3D model if the footprints have all flavors of QFNs, but on the other hand these are tiny differences and could add many more footprints.
@poeschlr What level of abstraction, if any, would you like?
I would simply use the footprint prefix in the description as well.
I would however advice against the use of MLF as it is kind of an obscure alternative name to QFN (In all cases that i looked up when i reworked the QFN lib i found that even atmel mentioned that they are basically the same as QFN. Most datasheets even said something like MLF/QFN or had QFN listed in the description.)
All but one of these footprints are only used by these Atmel symbols. Some of them also need EP size changes.
Most of the ATmega/ATtiny symbols end their descriptions and use footprints starting with "QFN-xx" where they should perhaps be more specific, eg. "VQFN". The problem: Atmel could not seem to decide whether to call it MLF, QFN or VQFN, and have several different package drawings with the exact same dimensions:
Looking at the package heights, they're all either 0.8-1.0mm (except for the UQFN and UDFN symbols). Should they all then be named VQFN?