• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Root Update failed and can't sbf

Napalm

Android Expert
Jul 28, 2010
1,122
214
Memphis, TN
I came off Chevy's SSX rom, flashed back to a stock save

I think I loaded back all the system apk's that I removed/renamed

I am still rooted so that is my last ditch effort.

I removed the beesley build.prop also.

more distrubing. Can't seem to even try to sbf. I have RSD lite 4.8. I have what seems to be the latest drivers. Put phone in to boot mode (whatever its actually called, the white and black screen that shows your bootloader version)

I can't get RSDLite to recognize my device. It recognizes the sbf file, no issue there. I even moved it to D: (my windows XP boot drive) but that doesn't seem to matter.

What am I doing wrong? Should I just us the TBH update files and do I have to stay rooted to start that process?
 
is there a way to try a different computer to see if the problem is with the pc?

It's a driver issue. Uninstall all of the Motorola drivers in your system, and install the latest version.

What are you on as of right now? 2.3.315?

Thank you.

Meanwhile I am going to try my work computer (also XP).

drivers I didn't uninstall what I have, but when I tried to install the file (I downloaded 3 different times to make sure it wasn't corrupted) tells me I have the latest installed. They work just fine for PC mode and everything else, I also used them to root the phone initially. Will try again.

And yes I am on 2.3.315 now (I left off a number) I know other people had issues but I was not seeing anything that fixed my problem. I will update later.
 
Upvote 0
Excellent!

Incidentally, it was my experience that the SBF did not give me the latest kernel, or the latest bootloader (actually, what happens is it changes the bootloader signatures but it doesn't update the bootloader version).

I did the .320 SBF, installed ApeX which gave me .340, then I used these files to update my bootloader and kernel:

http://androidforums.com/droid-x-al...340-kernel-radio-image-bootloader-system.html
 
Upvote 0
BV, that's essentially what I did as well. However, I had upgraded via Verizon OTA to .340 the first time but couldn't get root again so I had to SBF my phone to .320, rooted and then used the system only .340 SBF for the latest released version. Bootloader and radio already looked like the latest versions but I did have to update my kernel manually.

Quick question: I didn't specifically update the bootloader (as mentioned above) because mine already said version 30.04 when I powered up into the loader for the kernel update. Presumably I already have the latest version because of my initial OTA update? I only ask because your quote ("actually, what happens is it changes the bootloader signatures but it doesn't update the bootloader version") confuses me a bit. Thx.
 
Upvote 0
Quick question: I didn't specifically update the bootloader (as mentioned above) because mine already said version 30.04 when I powered up into the loader for the kernel update. Presumably I already have the latest version because of my initial OTA update? I only ask because your quote ("actually, what happens is it changes the bootloader signatures but it doesn't update the bootloader version") confuses me a bit. Thx.

Yes, the OTA updates the bootloader, which is why you have the latest.

What happens with the SBF, interestingly, is that when you flash the phone with a new SBF (e.g. upgrade from 2.1 -> 2.2, or 2.2 -> 2.2.1), it does not modify the bootloader version. The version still said 30.01 on mine, despite upgrading via two SBFs. However, it does modify the required signature to flash the SBF - because I couldn't revert backwards, only go forwards.

Not sure why that is, but the SBF modifies the bootloader without actually updating the version.

The TBH update files bring it to the current version, though, so I'm now sitting pretty.
 
Upvote 0
Yes, the OTA updates the bootloader, which is why you have the latest.

What happens with the SBF, interestingly, is that when you flash the phone with a new SBF (e.g. upgrade from 2.1 -> 2.2, or 2.2 -> 2.2.1), it does not modify the bootloader version. The version still said 30.01 on mine, despite upgrading via two SBFs. However, it does modify the required signature to flash the SBF - because I couldn't revert backwards, only go forwards.

Not sure why that is, but the SBF modifies the bootloader without actually updating the version.

The TBH update files bring it to the current version, though, so I'm now sitting pretty.

I have a theory but its pretty weak. When you SBF, your are in the bootloader screen to do the update. If the bootloader is active, while trying to write the various memory registers and one it open, it might just skip it. Hence when you check the version (since it is displayed during sbf) it shows previous version, even though other parts of the bootloader memory registers have been re-written.

Again weak, but explains why you have the ability to use other sbf files that should be locked out on 30.01 (or that guy that was on 29.01).

You won't see any functional difference, but there's a good possibility that, at some point, a release will come that only works on a certain version of the bootloader - and since the devs all work off the current version, it's nice to keep up to date.

My biggest concern, eventually I wouldn't be able to get software fixes.
 
Upvote 0
I have a theory but its pretty weak. When you SBF, your are in the bootloader screen to do the update. If the bootloader is active, while trying to write the various memory registers and one it open, it might just skip it. Hence when you check the version (since it is displayed during sbf) it shows previous version, even though other parts of the bootloader memory registers have been re-written.

Again weak, but explains why you have the ability to use other sbf files that should be locked out on 30.01 (or that guy that was on 29.01).

Not weak at all. Some version of that is definitely why it happens (that we're in the bootloader during the install, so we can't actually update the bootloader that that point), I just find it interesting that Motorola chose to not do something really easy (a file to run at the next boot, to update the BL) in order for them to be able to mark this modification. I realize that they didn't intend the SBF for distribution but the reason the SBF exists is for testing, and whenever our developers release even test code, you always want to mark the changes with a version number so you know if the changes took properly or not.

Just an odd decision to allow this modification to happen without any outward indication.
 
Upvote 0

BEST TECH IN 2023

We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.

Smartphones