Re: no longer sound on amd64 sid systems
* Paul Pignon <paulspignon@gmail.com> [2014-05-15 12:09 +0100]:
[...]> > ... lsmod | grep snd
> > snd_pcm 76785 0
> > snd_hwdep 13189 0
> > snd_page_alloc 13052 1 snd_pcm
> > snd_seq 53391 0
> > snd_seq_device 13132 1 snd_seq
> > snd_timer 22767 2 snd_seq,snd_pcm
> > snd 61901 5 snd_timer,snd_seq_device,snd_seq,snd_hwdep,snd_pcm
> > soundcore 13065 1 snd
>
> There is now card specific sound driver loaded. You have to find out
> which soundchip you are running and load the respective driver,
> though. But this should be done automagic by udev so there is
> something wrong with your kernel, half configured packages or
> something like that.
>
> *I reverted to the previous kernel, no joy, then re-installed the new one
> (KDE prompted me to do this when it discovered I was running an old
> kernel), so I cannot see how there could be anything wrong with the package
> or configuration, all handled automagically. Have browsed udev rules
> superficially but don't get much at this point.*
>
[...]
> > aplay: device_list:252: no soundcards found...
>
> Because there is no sound driver loaded.
> *OK, even though I unloaded and reloaded all the snd modules, obviously I
> have not understood something.*
[...]
> *It was a warning from KDE saying*
> *This is the list of devices KDE thinks can be removed:*
> *Capture: HDA ATI SB (STAC92xx Analog)*
> *Capture: HDA ATI SB, STAC92xx Analog (Default Audio Device)*
> *Output: HD-Audio Generic (HDMI 0)*
>
> *Output: HD-Audio Generic, HDMI 0 (HDMI Audio Output)*
> *Output: HDA ATI SB (STAC92xx Analog)*
> *Output: HDA ATI SB, STAC92xx Analog (Default Audio Device)*
>
> >
> > I tried removing and reinstating all the snd modules, to no avail.
>
That is useless with the modules listet above. The sound driver for
your STA92xx is missing!
Just try as root:
# modprobe -v snd-hda-intel
Elimar
--
Obviously the human brain works like a computer.
Since there are no stupid computers humans can't be stupid.
There are just a few running with Windows or even CE ;-)
Reply to: