cc @ zxybazh since you authored the Target system, cc @zhiics @comaniac as it
is related to BYOC
--
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/38#issuecomment-939150864
More notes to self:
- You can get the device_type for a Target from target_kind->device_type.
Somehow I missed that very obvious fact.
- Eric has a very nice write-up explaining devices vs targets vs device api at
docs/dev/device_target_interactions.rst
--
You are receiving this because you
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
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
While working on unifying some device planning passes and cleaning up the
TECompiler we noticed we have a lot of issues around how we transition from
devices to Targets in the hetogeneous compilation flow. This pre-RFC is a stab
at fixing those. There's a somewhat larger issue around bringing BY
