<p><b>@maribu</b> commented on this pull request.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/14324#discussion_r530295184">sys/entropy_source/doc.txt</a>:</p>
<pre style='color:#555'>> + * Although APIs between multiple entropy sources might be similar, every source has to define its
+ * own API to be open for specific requirements. Entropy sources are crucial, thus, separate APIs should
+ * make the choice for one or the other explicit. Furthermore, multiple sources should be able to run in parallel
+ * and separate APIs simplify access (source management).
<p>Still, this whole paragraph should be removed and the API should be marked as internal. That way, refactoring the implementation to a common API can be done without maintaining multiple APIs.</p>
<p>In fact, IMO we should also mark the common entropy source API(s) as internal. I don't think that any application developer should ever directly interact with entropy sources, but instead interface with an entropy collection and mixing subsystem. Documenting the low level API(s) as internal might be one additional motivation for application programmers to do the right thing.</p>
<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/14324#discussion_r530295184">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABE7WYF35K4HZHYAKYJMQITSRTRNLANCNFSM4OD5GKWQ">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABE7WYDMH7EIF2BW4CJWRTDSRTRNLA5CNFSM4OD5GKW2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWFIHK3DMKJSXC5LFON2FEZLWNFSXPKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEALTSNY.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
"name": "View Pull Request"
"description": "View this Pull Request on GitHub",