At Mon, 06 Jul 2015 06:31:57 -0700, robert.devanna@nospammail.net wrote:
The script includes the information, but your mail didn't, so I had to start a browser, and read it through by myself. If the codec chip was mentioned in the mail, I could answer in a second.
So, please, at the next time, give your hardware detail concisely in the mail itself. This will save lots of time.
I cooperatively provided the info that I was asked to provide -- the alsa-info script output for the before/after cases. ...
Since the output's too big for the list, apparently, I pastebin'd the full script output
[1] -> http://pastebin.com/jUyTRrFG [2] -> http://pastebin.com/4V8YCguV
The script info in my email clearly DOES provide the codec information.
I'd have put the script output INTO the email if the list didn't limit the size of the mail and refuse to accept it. It would save time if that limit didn't prevent including the info we're asked to provide.
Well, sorry, you miss the point.
Although alsa-info.sh contains the whole things, it's too lengthy. The problem is not about whether you attach it or copy the URL. It's about the attitude to ask something.
Imagine you are asking someone the place of your favorite restaurant. Would you give just a thick address book that includes your marking? No, usually you tell the name or the address of the restaurant. Then some people might already know and can explain even without reading through the whole book. If not told, people won't pay attention to your question (who dare read the whole book?).
In general, it's important to know which information to give for asking something. For a sound problem, usually the hardware information (the machine model, the codec chip, etc) is the starting point. Attaching alsa-info.sh outputs helps indeed, and often requested; but this is rather a subsidiary thing. Just a more couple of lines to describe your hardware often helps people to understand the problem itself better.
Takashi