[quote="manupa-arm, post:11, topic:12039"]
[quote="MJKlaiber, post:1, topic:12039"]
```
> class MyCustomAcceleratorPartitioner(UMAPartitioner):
@property
def target_name(self):
return "my_custom_accelerator"
def _register_patterns(self):
self._register_pattern("conv1d_relu", conv1d_relu_pattern())
def _register_relay_passes(self):
self._register_relay_pass(1, ConfigGenerator())
self._register_relay_pass(2, BufferScopeAnnotator())
> ```
[/quote]
Since the proposal suggests to use the properly registered targets, any reason
should we stick to target_name (str) as opposed to the actual TargetKind ?
[/quote]
Our current PoC implementation uses KCompiler Attributes and the Standard
MergeComposite, AnnotateTarget, MergeCompilerRegions.
[quote]
Following up on the above question, what are your thoughts on moving the
UMAPartitioner inside relay.build(…) ?
[/quote]
The current plan is to move to the collage implementation by @mbs-octoml as
soon as possible which would move partitioning into the relay.build.
---
[Visit
Topic](https://discuss.tvm.apache.org/t/rfc-uma-universal-modular-accelerator-interface/12039/12)
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/837ab862f15991155d58db1711f8be4f0d4f6c30411a07cf6cd400f22d54e9d8).
