Lack of firmware in the initramfs.img file of bootstrap mode.

[Tony Tarasov]

We use Fuel 5.0.1 with zabbix customization.

We had the issue of lack of firmware on Dell M610 blade.

On Dell M610 blade Customer uses the following NICS:

BROADCOM 5709 DUAL PORT 1GBE NIC
BROADCOM 57711 DUAL PORT 10GBE I/O CARD

They need to have the following firmware in /lib/firmware/bnx2 and /lib/firmware/bnx2x :

bnx2-mips-09-6.2.1b.fw https://github.com/cernekee/linux-firmware/blob/master/bnx2/bnx2-mips-09-6.2.1b.fw
bnx2x-e1h-7.8.17.0.fw http://ftp2.halpanet.org/source/_dev/linux-firmware.git/bnx2x/

Without these drivers node booted without any eth interfaces.

Pictures with the error are included.

[Vladimir Kuklin (vkuklin)]

we have almost latest linux firmware package in upcoming 5.0.1 and 5.1
I am not sure that update of bnx2x firmware will not break compatibility with other hardware. You can always repackage bootstrap yourself by uncompressing it and adding required firmware - we will need additional testing to cover this case in 5.1 and will not do it in 5.0.1.

[Tony Tarasov (atarasov)]

Thank you. For me it's not the problem. Tell that to our customers!

[Alexei Sheplyakov (asheplyakov)]

This bug looks like a duplicate of #1323354 (which has been already fixed and is under verification at the moment)

[Michael Semenov (msemenov)]

So, changed status to "Invalid" for 5.1.x

[Yuri Shovkoplias (yuri-shovkoplias)]

Please forgive me reopening this issue, here is the reason:

1. Vladimir Kuklin mentioned earlier that:
" we will need additional testing to cover this case in 5.1 and will not do it in 5.0.1 "
This is clear.
2. Then Aleksei Sheplyakov closed the issue as a duplicate of the following one:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1323354.
This is also clear.
3. The comment in 1323345 from Artem Panchenko states:
"Fix released, verified on iso # 122 (5.0.1) and # 317 (5.1)"

Now, taking into account the comment from Vladimir and comment from Artem, can somebody confirm where the services team can get the proper resolution and get it deployed to our customer (Tata communications)?

Thank you.

[Mike Scherbakov (mihgen)]

Raising this issue to High it makes totally impossible to deploy OpenStack on customer's env.

[Michael Semenov (msemenov)]

Alexey, it seems that we still need to add 2 files from bug description to the firmware. Please do it in 5.1 release.

[Alexei Sheplyakov (asheplyakov)]

The latest version of the linux-firmare package (to be more specific, the HEAD of the 5.1 branch, https://gerrit.mirantis.com/openstack-ci/centos64/linux-firmware) already contains the requested files.
I've rebuilt the package (locally on a CentOS 6.5 VM), and verified that the obtained RPM does contain both

/lib/firmware/bnx2/bnx2-mips-09-6.2.1b.fw
/lib/firmware/bnx2x/bnx2x-e1h-7.8.17.0.fw

Also those files are identical to ones in the official linux-firmware repository (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git)

d4e45ec714d992a5969ae548c1a9acf1 bnx2x/bnx2x-e1h-7.8.17.0.fw
818fb0623290ae1262ce8941b1c924bd bnx2/bnx2-mips-09-6.2.1b.fw

(As a side note https://github.com/cernekee/linux-firmware is an obsolete mirror, it hasn't been updated since December 2012)

[Mike Scherbakov (mihgen)]

It sounds risky to backport it in 5.0.1, can we do it after 5.0.1 comes out? (In 5.0.2)

[Michael Semenov (msemenov)]

Alexey, please, analyze it in 5.0.2

[Dmitry Pyzhov (dpyzhov)]

5.0.2 release will be shipped only as extra releases in 5.1 iso. It will include bootstrap 5.1 and we don't need to do anything in 5.0.2 for this bug.

[Miroslav Anashkin (manashkin)]

Actually, these firmware files already been included to 5.0.1 bootstrap on July, 15
Both also exist in Centos distribution, shipped with 5.0.1
But, bnx2x/bnx2x-e1h-7.8.17.0.fw and other firmware files are missing in both Ubuntu distributions, in 5.0.1 and 5.1 repos.
So, it is valid bug for 5.1.

[Miroslav Anashkin (manashkin)]

Ah, these are in
http://fuel-repository.mirantis.com/fwm/5.1/ubuntu/pool/main/linux-image-3.11.0-18-generic_3.11.0-18.32~precise1_amd64.deb

[Yuri Shovkoplias (yuri-shovkoplias)]

What is the reason to mark this bug as invalid, if this is actually a bug in 5.0?
According to Aleksey, The latest version of the linux-firmare package (to be more specific, the HEAD of the 5.1 branch), has got this issue resolved.

Should not it be the reason to target the issue resolution to 5.1 release, rather than mark it as invalid?
(I may not fully understand what the "invalid" means though)