On 2/13/26 2:56 AM, Erikas Bitovtas wrote:
>
>
> On 2/13/26 10:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 13/02/2026 09:29, Erikas Bitovtas wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Erikas Bitovtas <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,vcnl4000.yaml | 17
>>>>> +++++++++++------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,vcnl4000.yaml
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,vcnl4000.yaml
>>>>> index 4d1a225e8868..2ba4d5de4ec4 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,vcnl4000.yaml
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,vcnl4000.yaml
>>>>> @@ -18,12 +18,17 @@ allOf:
>>>>>
>>>>> properties:
>>>>> compatible:
>>>>> - enum:
>>>>> - - vishay,vcnl4000
>>>>> - - vishay,vcnl4010
>>>>> - - vishay,vcnl4020
>>>>> - - vishay,vcnl4040
>>>>> - - vishay,vcnl4200
>>>>> + oneOf:
>>>>> + - enum:
>>>>> + - capella,cm36672p
>>>>
>>>> CM36672P is compatible with CM36686, but this is not expressed.
>>>> Confusing commit msg and code.
>>>
>>> For CM36672P we create a dedicated compatible because it is a
>>> proximity-only sensor which has the same proximity sensor configuration,
>>> but ambient light sensor registers are missing (reserved).
>>
>> I don't understand this. You just wrote "fully compatible with CM36686"
>> and now you imply that not.
>>
>> Decide.
>>
> It is not. CM36672P supports only a subset of CM36686 features, in
> particular the proximity sensor. That is what I meant initially.
> I am sorry if the previous phrasing caused any confusion.
But CM36686 is fully compatible with CM36672P, right?
So this would make sense?
- items:
- const: capella,cm36686
- const: vishay,vcnl4040
- const: capella,cm36686p
