Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] dts: refactor build and node info classes

[Nicholas Pratte <npratte@iol.unh.edu>]

It took me a second to appreciate what the goal of separating this is,
but it makes complete sense to me now. This was an oversight on my end
as well when I was working on the config changes in once of the
patches I was assigned. Interestingly enough, I ran into a similar
problem with circular dependencies a long time ago when I was
attempting to do some 'arch' discovery changes, which I still intend
to implement. I think putting the node config in the os_session
component makes sense from a readability standpoint as well.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 1:51 PM Luca Vizzarro <luca.vizzarro@arm.com> wrote:
>
> The DPDKBuildInfo and NodeInfo classes, representing information
> gathered in runtime, were erroneously placed in the configuration
> package. This moves them in more appropriate modules.
>
> NodeInfo, specifically, ia moved to os_session instead of node mostly

Small typo here, change 'ia' to 'is'.

> as a consequence of circular dependencies. And given os_session is the
> top-most module to reference it, it appears to be the most suitable
> place outside of node.

As I said, this makes sense to me, but I wonder if it might make sense
to change 'NodeInfo' to 'OSSessionInfo' or something like that. I'd
imagine that if any attributes were to be tacked on in the future they
would probably be os related, but maybe there would be system
information, and in this case "OSSessionInfo" might be a good middle
ground. There are existing changes that I've done where arch is
discovered during runtime, and this could probably be placed in this
'NodeInfo' class as well when I get around to revising it. My only
concern is whether or not having "NodeConfiguration" and "NodeInfo"
classes floating around might make the framework more confusing to
read.

<snip>