Revert of Make GrGLConfigConversionEffect work for Imagination and some other GPUs.

Revert of Make GrGLConfigConversionEffect work for Imagination and some other GPUs. (https://codereview.chromium.org/277323002/)

Reason for revert:
Need to only use the highp variations on GLES contexts not GL contexts.

http://108.170.220.120:10117/builders/Test-Mac10.6-MacMini4.1-GeForce320M-x86_64-Release/builds/3398/steps/RunTests/logs/stdio


Original issue's description:
> Make GrGLConfigConversionEffect work for Imagination and some other GPUs.
> 
> BUG=372341
> 
> Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/93cf46f7d687128d2ad05762bd65fea6c4539553

TBR=
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=372341
Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/79fd2161448be2e6733281ef9ccb8d89c0c169a2

[bsalomon, 2014-07-09 15:04:07]

Created Revert of Make GrGLConfigConversionEffect work for Imagination and some
other GPUs.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-09 15:05:01]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/bsalomon@google.com/377263003/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-09 15:05:02]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-09 15:05:02]

No LGTM from a valid reviewer yet. Please ask for an LGTM from a
full Skia committer from
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/master/CQ_COMMITTERS

[bsalomon, 2014-07-09 15:07:24]

Can someone give an LGTM? I don't understand why that should be necessary.

Ravi, is it because the LGTM on the original patchset came from me?

[bsalomon, 2014-07-09 15:07:59]

Adding the sheriff.

[jcgregorio, 2014-07-09 15:08:15]

The CQ bit was checked by jcgregorio@google.com

[jcgregorio, 2014-07-09 15:08:19]

The CQ bit was unchecked by jcgregorio@google.com

[jcgregorio, 2014-07-09 15:08:24]

On 2014/07/09 15:07:59, bsalomon wrote:
> Adding the sheriff.

LGTM

[rmistry, 2014-07-09 15:09:08]

On 2014/07/09 15:07:24, bsalomon wrote:
> Can someone give an LGTM? I don't understand why that should be necessary.
> 
> Ravi, is it because the LGTM on the original patchset came from me?

This is because the original CL was created more than a month ago. More details
here: https://code.google.com/p/skia/issues/detail?id=2587

I'll add the missing keywords to this issue, you can then click the CQ checkbox.

[bsalomon, 2014-07-09 15:13:20]

The CQ bit was checked by bsalomon@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-09 15:14:26]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/bsalomon@google.com/377263003/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-07-09 15:14:44]

Change committed as 79fd2161448be2e6733281ef9ccb8d89c0c169a2

[bsalomon, 2014-07-09 15:28:02]

On 2014/07/09 15:09:08, rmistry wrote:
> On 2014/07/09 15:07:24, bsalomon wrote:
> > Can someone give an LGTM? I don't understand why that should be necessary.
> > 
> > Ravi, is it because the LGTM on the original patchset came from me?
> 
> This is because the original CL was created more than a month ago. More
details
> here: https://code.google.com/p/skia/issues/detail?id=2587

Thanks for the pointer. I get the logic, but is it feasible for it to be based
on commit date rather than rietveld issue creation data?

> 
> I'll add the missing keywords to this issue, you can then click the CQ
checkbox.

[rmistry, 2014-07-09 15:30:44]

On 2014/07/09 15:28:02, bsalomon wrote:
> On 2014/07/09 15:09:08, rmistry wrote:
> > On 2014/07/09 15:07:24, bsalomon wrote:
> > > Can someone give an LGTM? I don't understand why that should be necessary.
> > > 
> > > Ravi, is it because the LGTM on the original patchset came from me?
> > 
> > This is because the original CL was created more than a month ago. More
> details
> > here: https://code.google.com/p/skia/issues/detail?id=2587
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. I get the logic, but is it feasible for it to be based
> on commit date rather than rietveld issue creation data?

According to jrobbins@ there is no way to tell what the commit date is and the
only information we have to work with is the issue creation data. FWIW I was and
am against this feature, it does not make things obvious and behaves magically.

> 
> > 
> > I'll add the missing keywords to this issue, you can then click the CQ
> checkbox.