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

Re: snd_sun_cs4231



Tried audioctl yet?

Daniel van Eeden <daniel_e@dds.nl>

On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 20:29 +1300, kim@igrin.co.nz wrote:
> Could someone please let me know if there's a known problem with linux
> 2.6.8.1 and snd_sun_cs4231 and alsa 1.0.6, or whether I'm just doing
> something really stupid?
> 
> I compiled 2.6.8.1 (on Sarge) with alsa support for the sun cs4231 (I'm
> using an UltraSPARC 10), and with oss emulation. Attempting to 'insmod'
> snd-sun-cs4231 results in:
> 
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_new
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_lib_preallocate_pages_for_all
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_timer_interrupt
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_set_sync
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_lib_malloc_pages
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_lib_ioctl
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_lib_free_pages
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_set_ops
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_timer_new
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_hw_constraint_list
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_lib_preallocate_free_for_all
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_pcm_period_elapsed
> snd_sun_cs4231: Unknown symbol snd_free_pages
> 
> Is insmod even used anymore? Not quite used to module-init-tools yet...
> 
> Running 'modprobe', however, loads the module, and these modules too:
> 
> snd_sun_cs4231
> snd_pcm_oss
> snd_mixer_oss
> snd_pcm
> snd_timer
> snd_page_alloc
> snd
> soundcore
> 
> Running 'alsamixer', or a similiar program, fails with:
> 
>  gives this:
> 
> kernel: ioctl32(alsamixer:5735): Unknown cmd fd(3) cmd(40045500){00}
> arg(effff53c) on /dev/snd/controlC0
> 
> I've made all the necessary devices with MAKEDEV... I've got all the right
> alsa packages installed.
> 
> What gives? What stupid step have I forgotten? Should this be going to the
> linux-kernel mailing list?
> 
> -k.
> 
> 
-- 
Daniel van Eeden <daniel_e@dds.nl>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


Reply to: