[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: HP Omnibook 4100 was Re: IRQ Conflicts ?



Rob,

   Your post is precisely what these lists are for and gives me some
very helpful ideas!  Thanks!

   I will try a few things to emulate what you did and report back
as to what happens.

Thanks again!  doc


> On Friday 11 January 2002 03:17 pm, Doc wrote:
> > Al:
> >
> >    What sound card are you runing, please?  I am so far unable
> > to get my CS4237B card recognized. (That is what the HP site
> > says is in it.)
>
> I too, have an Omnibook 4100 (2.4.8 kernel) with that same sound chip, and
> have spent a few hours on this recently to varying degrees of success.
> I cheated a bit and installed sndconfig.
> I had to play with the manual settings for the sound chip in the BIOS
before
> I got to hear Linus yapping out my speakers (manually clearing out
> modules.conf and rmmod'ing after each failed attempt helped). On this
kernel
> I've been able to get it to use the sb module - *not* the CS42xx module.
SOX
> output is fine...crisp and clear so far. However, OSS and alsa have been
> total crap...at least as far as the xmms outputs go. When I have more time
to
> play, I'll work more on those. According to the Omnibook 4100 page I came
> across, http://www.urbaczewski.com/omnibooklinux.htm , commercial OSS
drivers
> were necessary to get it running, at least for the 2.2.16 kernel with Suse
> 7.0. I'd like to try and avoid that if possible.
>
> >    I am also running into video conflicts on my 4100.  Did you
> > have to do anything special?  (I have the 14" LCD.)
>
> I have the 13.3" display here, using XFree 4.1.0. XFree's config found the
> Neomagic video without a problem. I set it up for a Generic Laptop
Display,
> 1024x768 and it's got Blackbox looking pretty sharp. Previously, I'd had
it
> setup for the Generic Laptop Display, 800x600 and it looked like utter
> garbage...1024x768 was the way to go for me.
> Hope this is appropriate, and helps. I've been reading this list for some
> time now, but not posted before.
>
> -Rob




Reply to: