So should "simple triggers" behave different from "complex triggers" in that respect? And how about the "semi-complex" ones which use two channels (Qualified, Delay, Setup/Hold)? Having inconsistent behaviour in the way triggers do or don't remember their channels might get confusing too?
It would not be much of a deal:
If people are used to set up all the settings in the trigger over and over again, they can keep doing so, with my suggestion. But at some point they will realize, that settings are those, that they set up before. Complex trigger behahiour will NOT change.
I wrote a pseudo code, that might be better to understand:
if(trigger_type = A){ // simple trigger
check_channel(){
case 1: read settings from channel 1 for trigger_type A;
case 2: read settings from channel 2 for trigger_type A;
...
}
}
else if(trigger_type = B){ // complex trigger
read settings from trigger_type B;
}
If triggers remember every setting individually all the time, why do you keep struggling to set it up every time?
Trigger didn't change.
What you are doing changed. It is your practice that necessitates changes all the time. You are moving the goalpost all the time.
That is because there are ways to streamline your work.
Every time you connect SPI, connect it to same channels. And do it in sequence how signals are set in menu of scope CLK-MISO-MOSI-CS/. 1-2-3-4
Next time you enable Decode and
boom, it works. You enable SPI trigger,
boom it works.
No setup at all.
Despite fact that you used 3 other triggers in meantime.
Like I said before, most of your "complaints" and "optimizations" are just you trying to force the scope to "telepathically understand" what you want, instead of learning how to use it how it is.