Re: wireless on an old Thinkpad 600 - more specifically sound on 600E
The problem with sound on 600E is I understand a Historical one. I
owned the 600E for sometime and had faced this problem.
I remember that the problem is the fact that though the 600E sound
chip is of a particular make, it is detected as something else.
I remember solving it by uninstalling discover and a combination of
blacklisting and modprobing the right drivers(not sure though)
Its been years since I parted with the 600E.
thinkwiki describes this problem:
http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Problem_with_broken_sound_on_ThinkPad_600
And am sure there would a a lot and lot of google hits for the same,
because like I mentioned it is a very well known problem.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> wrote:
> A. C. Censi wrote:
>> Bob Proulx wrote:
>> > One option that has worked for me in other similar but different
>> > situations is to move/remove the module from the filesystem. With it
>> > gone from the disk the kernel couldn't load it. That worked for me
>> > without needing to recompile the kernel without the module.
>>
>> Why not put a blacklist entry in /etc/modprobe.d? Use as a model
>> entries already there.
>
> The answer to this question was in the part I quoted from and was
> responding to:
>
> A. F. Cano wrote:
>> It appears that the kernel insisted on loading this in preference to
>> other drivers and the sound hardware didn't work, even when I
>> blacklisted it and forcefully inserted the proper one. I presume that
>> by that time the resources had been marked as used, or initialized in
>> some way that made them unusable.
>
> As you can see I was well aware of the module blacklist functionality.
> It was used but did not prevent the problem.
>
> I can only add to the fud here by saying I have seen similar problems
> in the past. Even though the module was blacklisted this didn't seem
> to be enough to avoid the problem. Only by making sure that it was
> not possible to load the module could I avoid the problem. It appears
> by A. F. Cano's posting that I was not the only one with that issue.
>
> I do not know because I was not able to debug this to root cause but I
> will guess that there were scripts where the loading of the module was
> hard coded. I will guess that these scripts did not consult the
> blacklist.
>
> Again I do not know if any of those problems historically seen are
> still active today. Time goes by, old bugs are fixed, new bugs are
> created, and the world doesn't stay the same. I am not currently
> having any problems of this type but have moved on to more mainstream
> hardware too.
>
> Bob
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFJCd9X0pRcO8E2ULYRAiwmAJwPwH0exckNAjjMuZNwvxGzvf9GPwCfT9h+
> 3yapr480D1OXDNxEPjo7U60=
> =P6c/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Reply to: