This has gotten messy, hasn't it?
While we are waiting........
In relation to the mismatch you had encountered (1.4 / 5.4) -
All that was wrong here was the revision of the EDS file you had registered was too new for the revision that was running in the device (1.4). When you later uploaded the EDS from the device it correctly showed CIP revision 1.4 as you were running IOS 15.2.4EA9. These two revisions are lock-stepped.
If you simply registered the uploaded older EDS file and used it instead then the mismatch should have been corrected. You should not have needed to touch the IOS firmware for the switch.
The EDS file you had registered was CIP revision 5.4, which is the CIP revision lock-stepped to the latest IOS 15.2.7E0s. If you manage to sort this IOS upgrade out, then CIP revision 5.4 should be what you'll have upgraded to, not 7.x., or anything else.
Now, if you wanted to flash the firmware to the latest IOS anyway (it sounded like you didn't though?), then that is fine. I'm just informing you that you did not need to just sort out the mismatch.
Something to be aware of while advising in these situations...
What we see in a Stratix appliance should not be assumed as being the same in a Cisco appliance. The IOS releases for both Cisco and Stratix switches may seem closely matched, but not everything revision-wise is identical. Also, similar IOS revisions loaded on different models of appliances from the same vendor may be lock-stepped to different CIP revisions...
For instance, a Stratix 8000 running IOS revision 15.2(4)EA3, will be utilising CIP revision 11.001 (11.1). Whereas as Stratix 5700 running the same IOS revision 15.2(4)EA3, will be utilising CIP revision 7.001 (7.1).
If we try to compare the Cisco IE4000 model in question here running the IOS revision it had loaded...
IE-4000-8GT4G-E running IOS revision 15.2(4)EA3 will utilise CIP revision 1.004 (1.4). The equivalent Stratix model, which I mentioned earlier, 1783-HMS8T4CGN Stratix 5400 running the same IOS revision 15.2(4)EA3, will utilise CIP revision 2.001 (2.1).
And to reiterate, the latest IOS revision 15.2(7)E0s running on this IE-4000 appliance will utilise CIP revision 5.004 (5.4) and not what you might expect in a similar model, or different model Stratix appliance.
So as we can see, the different vendor appliances running the same IOS can vary, and the same IOS on different models of the same vendor can vary, when it comes to CIP revisions.
The other revision you see in the EDS file under the [File] section is the revision of the actual EDS file itself. This has nothing to do with the [Device] section CIP revision we see below it. It just informs us which revision of the file is being used. Also, any dates we see here under the [File] section are only related to the initial release and subsequent modifications of the EDS file.
In the two versions of EDS file for your IE-4000 appliance, notice how they both show "CreateDate = 03-18-2014". This is when the EDS file was originally created as that is when this model was released to market at EDS revision 1.0. This date will never change. Also notice the newer "ModDate = 04-22-2019" in the older revision 1.2 EDS file but older "ModDate = 10-24-2018" in the newer revision 1.3 EDS file. This just means changes were more recently made to the older file than the new.
While all that information is provided to help get our heads around the mismatch issue, and what is what with all these revisions, I would still like point out that changing or upgrading the IOS revision to the latest, and hence the revision of EDS file that may be used, will not resolve the original issue we had here in this thread. It is not an issue, as such, but more a case of an option not being implemented by the vendor, by choice.
The Cisco EDS AOP files do not implement named tags within the module-defined data types that are created when an instance of the EDS AOP is added to a project. Only the Stratix models, utilising actual AOPs, create named tags, by design.
So far, I have not seen a valid reason why the IOS "needed" to be upgraded? Good practice to do so, no doubt. But it wasn't do or die here and I feel it has now ended up adding to the woes, unfortunately.
I do hope you can get them back on track soon?
Regards,
George