[solved] Trouble Creating USB SSDT from RehabMan's Procedure

[wstrohm]

No. Easier just to leave it alone, and allows the extra ports to be powered down.

I don't understand this. How does leaving the port-count higher than the highest used port "power down" the extra ports? I would think the opposite would be true.

 

[RehabMan]

I don't understand this. How does leaving the port-count higher than the highest used port "power down" the extra ports? I would think the opposite would be true.

Last I looked at the code (it has been a while), ports that are included in the "count" but not injected are powered down.

 

[wstrohm]

Last I looked at the code (it has been a while), ports that are included in the "count" but not injected are powered down.

Okay, that's good, but isn't it also true that ports not included in the count are powered down? Anyway, I choose to make my port-count match my SSDT's highest port number. Any objection to that?

 

[RehabMan]

Okay, that's good, but isn't it also true that ports not included in the count are powered down?

When I looked, it didn't appear so.
It may have changed, or I may have interpreted the code wrongly.
Not sure if there is a way to verify.

Bottom line: No reason that I can see to change "port-count" to be smaller than the "controller port-count".

Anyway, I choose to make my port-count match my SSDT's highest port number. Any objection to that?

Your computer. You may do what you like.