> 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)). -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/60#issuecomment-1134520934 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <apache/tvm-rfcs/pull/60/c1134520...@github.com>
