# \[RFC\] Restructuring of the MLIR repo

**URL:** <https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-restructuring-of-the-mlir-repo/4927>\
**Category:** MLIR\
**Created:** [December 5, 2021, 6:17am UTC](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-restructuring-of-the-mlir-repo/4927 "2021-12-05T06:17:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 17

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sjarus](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex021/user_avatar/discourse.llvm.org/sjarus/32/1237_2.png) [@sjarus](https://discourse.llvm.org/u/sjarus)\
**Post date:** [December 8, 2021, 10:22pm UTC](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-restructuring-of-the-mlir-repo/4927/17 "2021-12-08T22:22:59Z")

</div>

> [@clattner](#):
>
> My personal opinion is that Linalg, and the things that depend on it, should be split out of the MLIR repo. It should either go into its own top-level thing, or perhaps into an incubator. It seems like its design is still evolving very rapidly, and I’ve heard a number of people be surprised by this - they thought integration into the MLIR repo implied a bit more stability…

This conversation seems related to what I just posted an RFC about: [[RFC] Moving TOSA construction lib into MLIR core](http://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-moving-tosa-construction-lib-into-mlir-core/4961) . Frontends → TOSA → LinAlg is a functional path, but also one in development. Certain artifacts in TOSA also drove LinAlg-side development, e.g. [TOSA to Linalg lowering (tosa.scatter) - #3 by hanchung](http://discourse.llvm.org/t/tosa-to-linalg-lowering-tosa-scatter/4898/3) .

In the quoted RFC I mentioned the problem with testing op constructors for a dialect like TOSA that sits at the interface from multiple frontends. A proposed way to address it is a dummy frontend dialect, but that brings its own share of concerns. It would nice to somehow integrate legalization test harnesses sitting within the real frameworks too.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-restructuring-of-the-mlir-repo/4927)._