@cron I think you're asking about how to express a situation where a subgraph of two adjacent Relay operators may match two patterns in the graph partitioning logic. could you elaborate on the exact problem you're having? I think the ordering logic should be sufficient to handle this, but it'd be good to understand your use case a bit further.
[quote="cron, post:2, topic:11498"] Is the ordering of first pattern matching your offloadable and then replacing, within the extracted composite, the native relay operators with your new ethosu.conv2d relay operator a solution to not being able to do what I said before? [/quote] It's worth mentioning that in the Ethos-U case, there are additional reasons to legalize into Ethos-U-specific Relay operators. Specifically, information is needed further down the compilation pipeline from that entire subgraph, and it's only valid to drive the Ethos-U compilation pipeline with certain patterns of Relay operators and with certain arguments to those operators. So if I'm understanding your original question correctly, you could view the Ethos-U legalization as more of a sanity-check or input validation step rather than a workaround for a pattern-matcher limitation. also cc @mbs-octoml @mbrookhart --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/how-to-add-my-custom-relay-node-to-pattern-matcher-ethosu-example/11498/4) to respond. You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode. To unsubscribe from these emails, [click here](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/email/unsubscribe/fca59ad872266b5bc3d8227ff30de264c93e73e685ff76735e82b4a9c14d13de).
