[Moto G Original Android Development] wskelly:
[MENTION=5290873]tlwhitec[/MENTION], you're right. I diffed my own kernel cmdline args with [MENTION=3816475]matmutant[/MENTION] and I see the following (attached foo2.png):

My radio = 0x6, [MENTION=3816475]matmutant[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6748252]gundelgauk[/MENTION] both have 0x1 --> mine is US version for T-Mob, a likely difference.

cid for me = 0x9, 0x7 for others. Carrier ID perhaps?

The BL is looking at the hardware and changing the kernel arguments. Nothing new there.

So I've got no difference in the other kernel arguments w/ [MENTION=3816475]matmutant[/MENTION].

There is another thread here where a few guys are nearly getting Ubuntu to boot on the Moto G, I asked the same question there about which bootloader they are using, I got an answer that it doesn't matter for them, but I asked for additional clarification. There is yet another thread where some guys are getting Firefox OS to boot on the Moto G. Of course they are not requiring a bootloader change because it doesn't matter.

The main point is, and what the developers have not answered is, what is the difference? An answer that the BL 'causes bugs' is not acceptable. Yet another answer about quality concerns from CM almost made me spit out my coffee. This is a nightly. When was the last stable build again? The number of commits that are put in and then later reverted from nightly build to nightly build (just read the lenghty changelogs) are the farthest thing from stability. CM isn't concerned about quality when the assert just sends people off looking for one of three different BLs?

Here is a perfect example (there are *hundreds* more) of the chaos: http://androidforums.com/threads/cdma-0x4119-bootloader-for-moto-g-boost.911833/

There should not be a "KK" or "LP" bootloader distinction. The bootloader does not care if it eventually loads Firefox OS, Ubuntu, KK, or LP. It probably does some hardware init and loads the kernel. If there are other things that it does that are different for LP, I'm wondering what they are. There is simply a basic lack of understanding on what the bootloader is/does. I have never seen more confusion or more 'brick' threads -- but then again I don't change phones often.

My last phone was the little Moto Defy. It had a locked bootloader. Some smart guys figured out they could insert a so-called "second init" that was a little piece of code that fired a secondary bootloader and eventually boot CM. I used this phone for way beyond it's lifespan (I think Moto abandoned it at GB)... all thanks to CM. Because the BL was locked, there are *zero* *valid* Defy brick threads. If someone thought it was bricked, it was because the battery was dead and wouldn't charge, and there were a number of workarounds for that.

The guys with bricked phones are likely planning to take them back or turn them in under warranty or with 'insurance' -- (I saw another thread with people asking for instructions how to make it completely dead so they could turn the phone in)... At end of the day, guys, we will all lose. I don't blame the OEMs for wanting to prevent us from doing what we're doing.

Anyway (sigh), whatever, the bootloader doesn't need to be updated. I'm using the old one, [MENTION=6748252]gundelgauk[/MENTION] is using the old one, there are a bunch of people who are also talking about the workaround and are going without -- so, there are fewer people to show up on the brick threads and fewer people trying to screw the carrier by turning in their bricked phones. My phone (US retail) never received the OTA, it was confirmed in this very thread -- no one knows why. So I can't 'officially' run CM12? What a crock.