NeoPixe and BLE extensions compatibility

Currently the NeoPixel MakeCode extension is incompatible with Bluetooth.
This is due to the current implementation for V1 and V2 using assembly, which does not work well with the BLE SoftDevice interrupts.

For micro:bit V2, CODAL has created a PWM-based Neopixel driver which is BLE compatible.

The extension can be updated to use this alternative driver for V1, but is there a way for an extension to be marked as BLE compatible with V2 and BLE incompatible with V1?

One possibility would be to have a V2-specific neopixel extension, but that can be confusing and harder to find.
Another option could be to update the extension to throw an error in V1 if BLE is enabled when the extension is about to be executed, but a runtime error in a worst UX for V1, compared to the current incompatible error pop up.

When a project in MakeCode has both extensions added, could a WebUSB connection in MakeCode with micro:bit V1 trigger the same "BLE incomatible" pop up? So that the user has to explicitly select to keep or remove BLE or Neopixel extensions. Even if it only happens in sessions with a WebUSB connection, at least that's a much better V1 user experience than having a runtime error.

Could we also get some stats to help figure out options? If we could know how many users add the BLE extension, and the % of V1 vs V2 users adding this extension, that'd give us an indication how many user these changes could affect.

No files or tests are named. Start by tracing how the NeoPixel and BLE extensions declare micro:bit V1/V2 compatibility and how the WebUSB connection presents incompatibility warnings; compare that with the CODAL PWM-based NeoPixel driver. Done means reaching an agreed compatibility design, including any needed V1 behavior and user-facing warning.