Thank you @wrongtest . It would be great to start with a base RFC that establishes the basic infra then followup RFCs.
If there is a change that touches some key data structures that(e.g. changes to TensorIR nodes) can affect other backends, separate RFCs would be appreciated since these would enjoy a broader discussion -- TYNNP use-case can be used as motivating factor and there could be other related applications, or tradeoffs that affects existing backends that needs to be considered. For code that are relatively isolated, follows the current architecture and specific to TYNNP(e.g. TensorIR code-gen for TYNNP, or a TYNNP specific pass/primitive that follows the same architecture and have no changes to the common data structures) , it is good to bundle them in a RFC and we certainly want to encourage quick adoption of new backends and primitives under the unified architecture. --- [Visit Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/introducing-ty-nnp-backend-with-end2end-tensorir-integration/11807/2) 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/a169369540c21aecd464a1751331dbfd34afed92172aef93641ec47fa4eca9e8).
