PaulPalomeroBernardo commented on PR #60: URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/60#issuecomment-1134520934
> ok for A1 i'm good with named phases and we can modify as necessary. i think the A2.2 solution of directly registering target attrs makes sense to me. is that the direction we're aligned on here? we can discuss this next week at the community meeting, or if we're in alignment on these two items, i think all that remains is to update the RFC to reflect the discussion here and we can approve/merge. @manupa-arm @areusch I think, we are aligned on this. We decided to go with the enum-based approach for A1 and use A2.2 for UMA v1. I updated the RFC accordingly ([Pass Phases](https://github.com/boschresearch/tvm-rfcs/blob/rfc_uma/rfcs/00xx_UMA_Unified_Modular_Accelerator_Interface.md#pass-phases), [Target Hooks](https://github.com/boschresearch/tvm-rfcs/blob/rfc_uma/rfcs/00xx_UMA_Unified_Modular_Accelerator_Interface.md#uma-target-hooks)). -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
