[Skiboot] [PATCH v2] ipmi-sel: Fix missing typo, line length and correct eSEL stylisation

[Russell Currey]

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 14:12 +0930, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> It might seem impossible to some that missing typos can be fixed
> without being first added, but here we are. Further, reduce the line
> length to sensible limits to ensure Joel provides a Reviewed-by, and
> fix eSEL stylisation to hopefully extract similar tags from the rest of
> the peanut gallery.
> 
> Suggested-by: Joel Stanley <joel at jms.id.au>
> Suggested-by: Russell Currey <ruscur at russell.cc>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew at aj.id.au>
> ---
> 
> What else have I missed?
> 
>  hw/ipmi/ipmi-sel.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/ipmi/ipmi-sel.c b/hw/ipmi/ipmi-sel.c
> index 847604ec10bf..5c766472b40c 100644
> --- a/hw/ipmi/ipmi-sel.c
> +++ b/hw/ipmi/ipmi-sel.c
> @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ static void ipmi_elog_poll(struct ipmi_msg *msg)
>  	size_t req_size;
>  
>  	if (bmc_platform->ipmi_oem_partial_add_esel == 0) {
> -		prlog(PR_WARNING, "BUG: Dropping ESEL on the floor due to
> buggy/mising code in OPAL for this BMC\n");
> +		prlog(PR_WARNING, "Dropped eSEL: BMC code is
> buggy/missing\n");

I'm not sure this is correct.  Is the original message wrong?

The original message asserts the "buggy" code is in OPAL's handling of a certain
BMC.  The new message instead suggests (or could be interpreted as suggesting)
that the BMC itself is at fault.

>  		return;
>  	}
>