Note to self: The With convention should probably also be removed by
this work also, but I've not audited the code to see how pervasive it is.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfc
Thanks @manupa-arm for the reminder there were some good comments on #8892. I
see a work stream:
1. get the multi-target handling under control, and stop relying on the
limiting device type -> target mapping
2. allow device planning to be re-run with additional memory scope constraints
to furthe
Thanks @manupa-arm @mbs-octoml @csullivan @areusch this RFC is now merged!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/23#issuecomment-932183904
Merged #23 into main.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/23#event-5394059797
@tqchen shall we get this in then?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/23#issuecomment-932148628
Hi @mbs-octoml ,
I may have put a related comment here :
https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/8892#issuecomment-932020564
However, partitioning for devices of same kind is a step forward from unifying
the BYOC and Device annotations.
Is this the RFC intended to cover these all ?
--
You are rece
