Change in coreboot[master]: security/tpm/crtm.c: Fix !CONFIG_BOOTBLOCK_IN_CBFS measuring

[Arthur Heymans (Code Review)]

Attention is currently required from: Nico Huber, Christian Walter.
Arthur Heymans has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/64418 )

Change subject: security/tpm/crtm.c: Fix !CONFIG_BOOTBLOCK_IN_CBFS measuring
......................................................................

Patch Set 1:

(1 comment)

File src/security/tpm/tspi/crtm.c:

https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/64418/comment/474a8c26_cf37691a 
PS1, Line 74: 	} /* else: TODO: Add SoC specific measurement methods. */
> Shouldn't we still return an error? or is this merely a best-effort
> measuring? IOW, should people know that the measuring is incomplete?

I think nothing else ever gets measured if this fails.
> (TBH, I don't understand self-measuring generally. It wouldn't make a
> difference if we'd use a pre-computed hash, would it?)

I think this codes dates from when this was not done in bootblock. 
Self-measuring might be useful if the binary you build != binary loaded, e.g. with APL TXE fixing up FIT. Not sure though...