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.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
