[rcxdude]

I do think autorouting is largely a UI problem for this reason. Specifying the constraints is very difficult, especially when it's also tied into assessing stuff like power distribution (where the rule of thumb of 100nF is almost certainly suboptimal, proximity probably matters less than you would think, and you can wind up with too much capacitance, but actually evaluating what matters is so much more complex that unless it's really critical it tends to be not much better than a blind guess that most of the time works well enough. I really would like to figure out a better set of rules for this, something a bit less heavyweight than a full simulation but still at least vaguely quantitive in terms of tradeoffs).

To me innovation in autorouting means being able to 'have a conversation' with it: being able to easily adjust things and see the results and map out the tradeoffs would be very useful, but it doesn't seem like this is an area that's being pushed too hard.

[summa_tech]

For the traditional "100 nF per pin" problem, there is an actual constraint based solution. What you _really_ want is an impedance and cross-impedance constraint on current loops through power pins. That's, ultimately, what matters: not some rule of thumb, but actual physics that attempts to quantify the board's response to the chip's changing load.

Interestingly, Qualcomm actually gives you these, but I haven't seen many (any?) other chip manufacturers do that. I wish that'd became common practice.

[rcxdude]

Yeah, you can do it, but it's quite a painful process and as you noted it's quite hard to actually get the required information: you can predict the impedance at the chip's pads across frequency, but only with a full-fledged simulation of the PCB, and then you don't actually know what counts as good enough in most cases. What I'd like is something that's a little easier to analyse and visualise even if a little less precise. It feels like there should be a much simpler model which gives you a view of how the impedance changes as you move away from the capacitor so that you can evaluate the tradeoffs without needing to set up and wait for a whole simulation.

(especially because as I understand it, distance tends to matter a lot less than people expect, especially because once you're up at frequencies where it might matter, it's not so much the capacitors providing the decoupling as the power planes themselves anyhow)

[seveibar]

> To me innovation in autorouting means being able to 'have a conversation' with it: being able to easily adjust things and see the results and map out the tradeoffs would be very useful

author here: This is basically our philosophy. LLMs can churn out constraints/code very quickly to pull out the specific requirements for a design or the chips you're using. When people use tscircuit (or any electronics-as-code framework) they can talk to an LLM and just keep yelling at it in the same way you yell at an LLM to fix a web page. The success of web pages and LLMs is built from small constraint algorithms like flexbox and CSS grid, this article is just one constraint algorithm that can help LLMs approximate a solution without specifying a bunch of XY coordinates that would challenge its spatial understanding