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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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----- > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
