[-fixes,v4,2/3] riscv: Add a custom ISA extension for the [ms]envcfg CSR

Commit Message

Samuel Holland Feb. 28, 2024, 6:55 a.m. UTC

The [ms]envcfg CSR was added in version 1.12 of the RISC-V privileged
ISA (aka S[ms]1p12). However, bits in this CSR are defined by several
other extensions which may be implemented separately from any particular
version of the privileged ISA (for example, some unrelated errata may
prevent an implementation from claiming conformance with Ss1p12). As a
result, Linux cannot simply use the privileged ISA version to determine
if the CSR is present. It must also check if any of these other
extensions are implemented. It also cannot probe the existence of the
CSR at runtime, because Linux does not require Sstrict, so (in the
absence of additional information) it cannot know if a CSR at that
address is [ms]envcfg or part of some non-conforming vendor extension.

Since there are several standard extensions that imply the existence of
the [ms]envcfg CSR, it becomes unwieldy to check for all of them
wherever the CSR is accessed. Instead, define a custom Xlinuxenvcfg ISA
extension bit that is implied by the other extensions and denotes that
the CSR exists as defined in the privileged ISA, containing at least one
of the fields common between menvcfg and senvcfg.

This extension does not need to be parsed from the devicetree or ISA
string because it can only be implemented as a subset of some other
standard extension.

Cc: <[e-mail]> # v6.7+
Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <[e-mail]>
---

Changes in v4:
 - New patch for v4

 arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h |  2 ++
 arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Conor Dooley Feb. 28, 2024, 10:12 a.m. UTC | #1

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:55:34PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
> The [ms]envcfg CSR was added in version 1.12 of the RISC-V privileged
> ISA (aka S[ms]1p12). However, bits in this CSR are defined by several
> other extensions which may be implemented separately from any particular
> version of the privileged ISA (for example, some unrelated errata may
> prevent an implementation from claiming conformance with Ss1p12). As a
> result, Linux cannot simply use the privileged ISA version to determine
> if the CSR is present. It must also check if any of these other
> extensions are implemented. It also cannot probe the existence of the
> CSR at runtime, because Linux does not require Sstrict, so (in the
> absence of additional information) it cannot know if a CSR at that
> address is [ms]envcfg or part of some non-conforming vendor extension.
> 
> Since there are several standard extensions that imply the existence of
> the [ms]envcfg CSR, it becomes unwieldy to check for all of them
> wherever the CSR is accessed. Instead, define a custom Xlinuxenvcfg ISA
> extension bit that is implied by the other extensions and denotes that
> the CSR exists as defined in the privileged ISA, containing at least one
> of the fields common between menvcfg and senvcfg.

> This extension does not need to be parsed from the devicetree or ISA
> string because it can only be implemented as a subset of some other
> standard extension.

NGL, every time I look at the superset stuff I question whether or not
it is a good implementation, but it is nice to see that it at least
makes the creation of quasi-extension flags like this straightforward.

Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <[e-mail]>

Cheers,
Conor.


> 
> Cc: <[e-mail]> # v6.7+
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <[e-mail]>
> ---
> 
> Changes in v4:
>  - New patch for v4
> 
>  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h |  2 ++
>  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> index 5340f818746b..1f2d2599c655 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@
>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZTSO		72
>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZACAS		73
>  
> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	127
> +
>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX		128
>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_INVALID		U32_MAX
>  
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index c5b13f7dd482..dacffef68ce2 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -201,6 +201,16 @@ static const unsigned int riscv_zvbb_exts[] = {
>  	RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZVKB
>  };
>  
> +/*
> + * While the [ms]envcfg CSRs were not defined until version 1.12 of the RISC-V
> + * privileged ISA, the existence of the CSRs is implied by any extension which
> + * specifies [ms]envcfg bit(s). Hence, we define a custom ISA extension for the
> + * existence of the CSR, and treat it as a subset of those other extensions.
> + */
> +static const unsigned int riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts[] = {
> +	RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG
> +};
> +
>  /*
>   * The canonical order of ISA extension names in the ISA string is defined in
>   * chapter 27 of the unprivileged specification.
> @@ -250,8 +260,8 @@ const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(c, RISCV_ISA_EXT_c),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(v, RISCV_ISA_EXT_v),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(h, RISCV_ISA_EXT_h),
> -	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
> -	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ),
> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM, riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts),
> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ, riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicntr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICNTR),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicond, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICOND),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicsr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICSR),
> -- 
> 2.43.1
>

Andrew Jones Feb. 28, 2024, 1:23 p.m. UTC | #2

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:55:34PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
> The [ms]envcfg CSR was added in version 1.12 of the RISC-V privileged
> ISA (aka S[ms]1p12). However, bits in this CSR are defined by several
> other extensions which may be implemented separately from any particular
> version of the privileged ISA (for example, some unrelated errata may
> prevent an implementation from claiming conformance with Ss1p12). As a
> result, Linux cannot simply use the privileged ISA version to determine
> if the CSR is present. It must also check if any of these other
> extensions are implemented. It also cannot probe the existence of the
> CSR at runtime, because Linux does not require Sstrict, so (in the
> absence of additional information) it cannot know if a CSR at that
> address is [ms]envcfg or part of some non-conforming vendor extension.
> 
> Since there are several standard extensions that imply the existence of
> the [ms]envcfg CSR, it becomes unwieldy to check for all of them
> wherever the CSR is accessed. Instead, define a custom Xlinuxenvcfg ISA
> extension bit that is implied by the other extensions and denotes that
> the CSR exists as defined in the privileged ISA, containing at least one
> of the fields common between menvcfg and senvcfg.
> 
> This extension does not need to be parsed from the devicetree or ISA
> string because it can only be implemented as a subset of some other
> standard extension.
> 
> Cc: <[e-mail]> # v6.7+
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <[e-mail]>
> ---
> 
> Changes in v4:
>  - New patch for v4
> 
>  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h |  2 ++
>  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> index 5340f818746b..1f2d2599c655 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@
>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZTSO		72
>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZACAS		73
>  
> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	127

Since 128 is just the current max and will need to be bumped someday,
xlinuxenvcfg will end up in the middle of the list at some point anyway
(since bumping it too would be unnecessary churn). With that in mind,
I'd probably have just assigned it 74, but either way is fine by me.

> +
>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX		128
>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_INVALID		U32_MAX
>  
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index c5b13f7dd482..dacffef68ce2 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -201,6 +201,16 @@ static const unsigned int riscv_zvbb_exts[] = {
>  	RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZVKB
>  };
>  
> +/*
> + * While the [ms]envcfg CSRs were not defined until version 1.12 of the RISC-V
> + * privileged ISA, the existence of the CSRs is implied by any extension which
> + * specifies [ms]envcfg bit(s). Hence, we define a custom ISA extension for the
> + * existence of the CSR, and treat it as a subset of those other extensions.
> + */
> +static const unsigned int riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts[] = {
> +	RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG
> +};
> +
>  /*
>   * The canonical order of ISA extension names in the ISA string is defined in
>   * chapter 27 of the unprivileged specification.
> @@ -250,8 +260,8 @@ const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(c, RISCV_ISA_EXT_c),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(v, RISCV_ISA_EXT_v),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(h, RISCV_ISA_EXT_h),
> -	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
> -	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ),
> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM, riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts),
> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ, riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicntr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICNTR),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicond, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICOND),
>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicsr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICSR),
> -- 
> 2.43.1
>

Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <[e-mail]>

Palmer Dabbelt Feb. 29, 2024, 6:23 p.m. UTC | #3

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 02:12:14 PST (-0800), Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:55:34PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
>> The [ms]envcfg CSR was added in version 1.12 of the RISC-V privileged
>> ISA (aka S[ms]1p12). However, bits in this CSR are defined by several
>> other extensions which may be implemented separately from any particular
>> version of the privileged ISA (for example, some unrelated errata may
>> prevent an implementation from claiming conformance with Ss1p12). As a
>> result, Linux cannot simply use the privileged ISA version to determine
>> if the CSR is present. It must also check if any of these other
>> extensions are implemented. It also cannot probe the existence of the
>> CSR at runtime, because Linux does not require Sstrict, so (in the
>> absence of additional information) it cannot know if a CSR at that
>> address is [ms]envcfg or part of some non-conforming vendor extension.
>> 
>> Since there are several standard extensions that imply the existence of
>> the [ms]envcfg CSR, it becomes unwieldy to check for all of them
>> wherever the CSR is accessed. Instead, define a custom Xlinuxenvcfg ISA
>> extension bit that is implied by the other extensions and denotes that
>> the CSR exists as defined in the privileged ISA, containing at least one
>> of the fields common between menvcfg and senvcfg.
>
>> This extension does not need to be parsed from the devicetree or ISA
>> string because it can only be implemented as a subset of some other
>> standard extension.
>
> NGL, every time I look at the superset stuff I question whether or not
> it is a good implementation, but it is nice to see that it at least
> makes the creation of quasi-extension flags like this straightforward.

We can always add it to the DT list as a proper extension, but I think 
for this sort of stuff it's good enough for now -- we've already got a 
bunch of complexity for the proper ISA-defined extension dependencies, 
so it's not like we could really get away from it entirely.

> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <[e-mail]>
>
> Cheers,
> Conor.
>
>
>> 
>> Cc: <[e-mail]> # v6.7+
>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <[e-mail]>
>> ---
>> 
>> Changes in v4:
>>  - New patch for v4
>> 
>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h |  2 ++
>>  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>> index 5340f818746b..1f2d2599c655 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>> @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@
>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZTSO		72
>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZACAS		73
>>  
>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	127
>> +
>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX		128
>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_INVALID		U32_MAX
>>  
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index c5b13f7dd482..dacffef68ce2 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -201,6 +201,16 @@ static const unsigned int riscv_zvbb_exts[] = {
>>  	RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZVKB
>>  };
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * While the [ms]envcfg CSRs were not defined until version 1.12 of the RISC-V
>> + * privileged ISA, the existence of the CSRs is implied by any extension which
>> + * specifies [ms]envcfg bit(s). Hence, we define a custom ISA extension for the
>> + * existence of the CSR, and treat it as a subset of those other extensions.
>> + */
>> +static const unsigned int riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts[] = {
>> +	RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG
>> +};
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * The canonical order of ISA extension names in the ISA string is defined in
>>   * chapter 27 of the unprivileged specification.
>> @@ -250,8 +260,8 @@ const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(c, RISCV_ISA_EXT_c),
>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(v, RISCV_ISA_EXT_v),
>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(h, RISCV_ISA_EXT_h),
>> -	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
>> -	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ),
>> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM, riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts),
>> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ, riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts),
>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicntr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICNTR),
>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicond, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICOND),
>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicsr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICSR),
>> -- 
>> 2.43.1
>>

Conor Dooley Feb. 29, 2024, 6:30 p.m. UTC | #4

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:23:39AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 02:12:14 PST (-0800), Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:55:34PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > > The [ms]envcfg CSR was added in version 1.12 of the RISC-V privileged
> > > ISA (aka S[ms]1p12). However, bits in this CSR are defined by several
> > > other extensions which may be implemented separately from any particular
> > > version of the privileged ISA (for example, some unrelated errata may
> > > prevent an implementation from claiming conformance with Ss1p12). As a
> > > result, Linux cannot simply use the privileged ISA version to determine
> > > if the CSR is present. It must also check if any of these other
> > > extensions are implemented. It also cannot probe the existence of the
> > > CSR at runtime, because Linux does not require Sstrict, so (in the
> > > absence of additional information) it cannot know if a CSR at that
> > > address is [ms]envcfg or part of some non-conforming vendor extension.
> > > 
> > > Since there are several standard extensions that imply the existence of
> > > the [ms]envcfg CSR, it becomes unwieldy to check for all of them
> > > wherever the CSR is accessed. Instead, define a custom Xlinuxenvcfg ISA
> > > extension bit that is implied by the other extensions and denotes that
> > > the CSR exists as defined in the privileged ISA, containing at least one
> > > of the fields common between menvcfg and senvcfg.
> > 
> > > This extension does not need to be parsed from the devicetree or ISA
> > > string because it can only be implemented as a subset of some other
> > > standard extension.
> > 
> > NGL, every time I look at the superset stuff I question whether or not
> > it is a good implementation, but it is nice to see that it at least
> > makes the creation of quasi-extension flags like this straightforward.
> 
> We can always add it to the DT list as a proper extension, but I think for
> this sort of stuff it's good enough for now

Perhaps good enough forever. I was not advocating for adding it as a
permitted DT property - I was just saying that I didn't the complexity
that you mention below, but I was pleasantly surprised that the stuff
?Evan? and I came up with allows for this kind of inferred "extension"
without any changes.

> -- we've already got a bunch of
> complexity for the proper ISA-defined extension dependencies, so it's not
> like we could really get away from it entirely.

Palmer Dabbelt Feb. 29, 2024, 11:40 p.m. UTC | #5

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:30:10 PST (-0800), Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:23:39AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 02:12:14 PST (-0800), Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:55:34PM -0800, Samuel Holland wrote:
>> > > The [ms]envcfg CSR was added in version 1.12 of the RISC-V privileged
>> > > ISA (aka S[ms]1p12). However, bits in this CSR are defined by several
>> > > other extensions which may be implemented separately from any particular
>> > > version of the privileged ISA (for example, some unrelated errata may
>> > > prevent an implementation from claiming conformance with Ss1p12). As a
>> > > result, Linux cannot simply use the privileged ISA version to determine
>> > > if the CSR is present. It must also check if any of these other
>> > > extensions are implemented. It also cannot probe the existence of the
>> > > CSR at runtime, because Linux does not require Sstrict, so (in the
>> > > absence of additional information) it cannot know if a CSR at that
>> > > address is [ms]envcfg or part of some non-conforming vendor extension.
>> > > 
>> > > Since there are several standard extensions that imply the existence of
>> > > the [ms]envcfg CSR, it becomes unwieldy to check for all of them
>> > > wherever the CSR is accessed. Instead, define a custom Xlinuxenvcfg ISA
>> > > extension bit that is implied by the other extensions and denotes that
>> > > the CSR exists as defined in the privileged ISA, containing at least one
>> > > of the fields common between menvcfg and senvcfg.
>> > 
>> > > This extension does not need to be parsed from the devicetree or ISA
>> > > string because it can only be implemented as a subset of some other
>> > > standard extension.
>> > 
>> > NGL, every time I look at the superset stuff I question whether or not
>> > it is a good implementation, but it is nice to see that it at least
>> > makes the creation of quasi-extension flags like this straightforward.
>> 
>> We can always add it to the DT list as a proper extension, but I think for
>> this sort of stuff it's good enough for now
>
> Perhaps good enough forever. I was not advocating for adding it as a
> permitted DT property - I was just saying that I didn't the complexity
> that you mention below, but I was pleasantly surprised that the stuff
> ?Evan? and I came up with allows for this kind of inferred "extension"
> without any changes.

Ya, I'm in the same boat.  I think we can get away without putting these 
into DT until we end up with something odd going on, like some other 
flavor of *envcf from some vendor being weird.

>> -- we've already got a bunch of
>> complexity for the proper ISA-defined extension dependencies, so it's not
>> like we could really get away from it entirely.

Patch

diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
index 5340f818746b..1f2d2599c655 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
@@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ 
 #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZTSO		72
 #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZACAS		73
 
+#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	127
+
 #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX		128
 #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_INVALID		U32_MAX
 
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
index c5b13f7dd482..dacffef68ce2 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -201,6 +201,16 @@  static const unsigned int riscv_zvbb_exts[] = {
 	RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZVKB
 };
 
+/*
+ * While the [ms]envcfg CSRs were not defined until version 1.12 of the RISC-V
+ * privileged ISA, the existence of the CSRs is implied by any extension which
+ * specifies [ms]envcfg bit(s). Hence, we define a custom ISA extension for the
+ * existence of the CSR, and treat it as a subset of those other extensions.
+ */
+static const unsigned int riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts[] = {
+	RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG
+};
+
 /*
  * The canonical order of ISA extension names in the ISA string is defined in
  * chapter 27 of the unprivileged specification.
@@ -250,8 +260,8 @@  const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
 	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(c, RISCV_ISA_EXT_c),
 	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(v, RISCV_ISA_EXT_v),
 	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(h, RISCV_ISA_EXT_h),
-	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
-	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ),
+	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM, riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts),
+	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_SUPERSET(zicboz, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOZ, riscv_xlinuxenvcfg_exts),
 	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicntr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICNTR),
 	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicond, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICOND),
 	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicsr, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICSR),