I agree with @matt-arm that we should be hesitant to use BYOC as a catch-all for everything we haven't implemented in TVM.
What would help me better understand the motivation for this change is an example of a quantization flow that isn't easily expressible with TVM's *internal* facilities. I'm not very familiar with Relay's QNN dialect, but given that there is great interest in improving TVM's quantization facilities, I'm curious if the flow you have in mind could be accommodated by minor improvements to the QNN dialect. Or perhaps there's a larger RFC (or two) hiding within this discussion, as @comaniac suggested. As a side note, if we decide we **do** want to include `calib_data` as a config parameter, it should be namespaced, as in the following snippets: https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/blob/master/tests/python/relay/test_pass_annotation.py#L542 https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/blob/master/tests/python/unittest/test_runtime_micro.py#L53 Perhaps `relay.quantize.calib_data`? --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.ai/t/rfc-byoc-data-calibration-flow/7099/11) to respond. You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode. To unsubscribe from these emails, [click here](https://discuss.tvm.ai/email/unsubscribe/2f85700bb0fc6e9dba092e581933a37cd103a2b77600f951cd8ca8ed476da455).
