> ...will go down in history as one of the most fucked up kernels
> ever released.
>
> We can't even get the damn kernel to install modules upon boot. In
> fact, the only way we can load any module is with insmod.

Interesting, 2.6.20 works great for me.
I even changed from ide_piix to the ata_piix driver during the upgrade from
2.6.18.

Also suspend2 (2.2.9.7) seems to be much faster now than the 2.2.9 on the
2.6.18 kernel.

--
damjan

Le jeudi 15 février 2007 03:56, rm@biteme.org s'est exprimé de la sorte sur
alt.os.linux.slackware :

> We do go back to windoze when the occasion demands it. *Don't you?
Never seen any occasions to do so.
--
@+
Doug [Linux user #307925] - Slackware RuleZ ;-)
[Pourquoi t'es qui, qu'est ce que tu fais par où ?]
-- Pour me contacter enlever no-spam (2X) --

Damjan <gdamjan@gmail.com> wrote:

>> ...will go down in history as one of the most fucked up kernels
>> ever released.
>>
>> We can't even get the damn kernel to install modules upon boot.
>> In fact, the only way we can load any module is with insmod.
>
> Interesting, 2.6.20 works great for me.
> I even changed from ide_piix to the ata_piix driver during the upgrade from
> 2.6.18.
>
> Also suspend2 (2.2.9.7) seems to be much faster now than the 2.2.9 on the
> 2.6.18 kernel.

As you can see in the headers, we are having no problems using
2.6.20 except for sound (AC'97). The Alsa website claims that the
2.6.x kernels need the drivers compiled as modules to work. But
each time we try to load the modules, which have compiled ok, we get
errors.

We never use modules unless we absolutely need them so we don't have
a lot of experience with them. Modules are totally unnecessary,
normally, and slow the machine down with bloat. We're willing to
bet that the reason the Alsa drivers don't work has more to do with
the Module apparatus than it does with the Alsa drivers.

If you want to contribute to the discussion about why our modules
won't load at bootup, fine. But if you are simply trying to goad
us, well, you haven't been around very long.

cordially, as always,

rm

Doug713705 <no-spam.doug.letough@wanadoo.fr.no-spam> wrote:
> Le jeudi 15 f?vrier 2007 03:56, rm@biteme.org s'est exprim? de la sorte sur
> alt.os.linux.slackware :
>
>> We do go back to windoze when the occasion demands it. ?Don't you?
> Never seen any occasions to do so.

Don't use your computer for much, eh?

cordially, as always,

rm

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:38:32 +0000, rm wrote:

> As you can see in the headers, we are having no problems using
> 2.6.20 except for sound (AC'97). The Alsa website claims that the
> 2.6.x kernels need the drivers compiled as modules to work. But
> each time we try to load the modules, which have compiled ok, we get
> errors.

Horseshit. The ALSA drivers don't need to be modules. I've got multiple
machines here with ALSA enabled in the kernel, no modules, and sound works
fine on all of them.

> We never use modules unless we absolutely need them so we don't have a
> lot of experience with them. Modules are totally unnecessary, normally,
> and slow the machine down with bloat. We're willing to bet that the
> reason the Alsa drivers don't work has more to do with the Module
> apparatus than it does with the Alsa drivers.

Then don't use modules for ALSA, you ignorant n00b. Compile the kernel
with ALSA support enabled *in the kernel*.

> If you want to contribute to the discussion about why our modules won't
> load at bootup, fine. But if you are simply trying to goad us, well,
> you haven't been around very long.

You're one of the easiest to goad, along with your pal ANC. You're both
pathetic morons with nearly no knowledge of Linux whatsoever. Any
doubts about that fact have been cleared up by your comments in this
thread. LOL! Why aren't you using Linspire, or Mandrivel?

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:38:32 +0000, rm wrote:

>> As you can see in the headers, we are having no problems using
>> 2.6.20 except for sound (AC'97). The Alsa website claims that the
>> 2.6.x kernels need the drivers compiled as modules to work. But
>> each time we try to load the modules, which have compiled ok, we get
>> errors.
>
> Horseshit. The ALSA drivers don't need to be modules. I've got
> multiple machines here with ALSA enabled in the kernel, no
> modules, and sound works fine on all of them.

Read the Alsa site about their AC'97 drivers. Do you think you can
find it?

BTW: did you feel your head being squeezed?

cordially, as always,

rm

rm@biteme.org wrote:

> As you can see in the headers, we are having no problems using
> 2.6.20 except for sound (AC'97). The Alsa website claims that the
> 2.6.x kernels need the drivers compiled as modules to work.

Hrmmm ... that advice may be out of date. My current music
workstation, running Slackware-10.2:

: calliope[syl] ~; uname -r
2.6.19.2
: calliope[syl] ~; lsmod
Opening /proc/modules: No such file or directory
(ie. kernel is monolithic; no modules)
: calliope[syl] ~; aplay -l
**** List of PLAYBACK Hardware Devices ****
card 1: IXP [ATI IXP], device 0: ATI IXP AC97 [ATI IXP AC97]
Subdevices: 1/1
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0
card 1: IXP [ATI IXP], device 1: ATI IXP IEC958 [ATI IXP IEC958 (AC97)]
Subdevices: 1/1
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0
card 2: CS46xx [Sound Fusion CS46xx], device 0: CS46xx [CS46xx]
Subdevices: 31/31
...
card 2: CS46xx [Sound Fusion CS46xx], device 1: CS46xx - Rear [CS46xx - Rear]
Subdevices: 31/31
card 2: CS46xx [Sound Fusion CS46xx], device 2: CS46xx - IEC958 [CS46xx - IEC958]
Subdevices: 1/1
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0

Output from dmesg includes the following that is of interest:

Advanced Linux Sound Architecture Driver Version 1.0.13
(Tue Nov 28 14:07:24 2006 UTC).
ALSA device list:
#0: Virtual MIDI Card 1
#1: ATI IXP rev 2 with ALC658D at 0xfe02a000, irq 21
#2: Sound Fusion CS46xx at 0xfddff000/0xfdc00000, irq 19


> If you want to contribute to the discussion about why our modules
> won't load at bootup, fine. ...

This may be a silly question, but have you tried compiling it
monolithically?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

rm@biteme.org wrote:

> Read the Alsa site about their AC'97 drivers. ...

I'm pretty sure that documentation is out of date. I'm inclined to
believe (perhaps some of) it may even pre-date ALSA being included with
the kernel. I think you should try compiling the driver into a
monolithic kernel.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

rm@biteme.org wrote:

> ...will go down in history as one of the most fucked up kernels
> ever released.
>
> We can't even get the damn kernel to install modules upon boot.
> In fact, the only way we can load any module is with insmod.
>
<snip>

Hm, I'm using 2.6.20 with some modules, including ALSA and they
load at boot w/o problems. Have you by any chance forgotten to
enable automatic kernel modul loading?

Joerg
--
For email use g m x d o t n e t

Sylvain Robitaille <syl@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

> This may be a silly question, but have you tried compiling it
> monolithically?

Well, yeah. Duh. There is more than one board that uses AC'97.

cordially, as always,

rm