Revert of Modified MediaCodecBridge as per android API label 21.

Revert of Modified MediaCodecBridge as per android API label 21. (patchset #6 id:100001 of https://codereview.chromium.org/687683002/)

Reason for revert:
Fails to compile on Win8 GN:

http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.win/builders/Win8%20GN/builds/686

Original issue's description:
> Modified MediaCodecBridge as per android API label 21.
>
> The following methods are deprecated in API lavel 21
>   1) getCodecInfoAt(int)
>   2) getCodecCount()
>
> As per API lavel 21 we should use getCodecInfos() instead of above
> two API.
>
> BUG=None
>
> Committed: https://crrev.com/d064353cd04c9d8c1148c1d15ea5b3f88628e0e9
> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#305404}

TBR=qinmin@chromium.org,aurimas@chromium.org,boliu@chromium.org,jitendra.ks@samsung.com
NOTREECHECKS=true
NOTRY=true
BUG=None

Committed: https://crrev.com/6948e4a584d16ed02076146fda5e832daed95f0d
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#305405}

[Thiemo Nagel, 2014-11-24 09:30:41]

Created Revert of Modified MediaCodecBridge as per android API label 21.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-24 09:31:45]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/753963002/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-24 09:32:09]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-11-24 09:32:51]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/6948e4a584d16ed02076146fda5e832daed95f0d
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#305405}

[boliu, 2014-11-24 17:07:00]

FYI this revert was probably wrong. This is an android-only java file change.
Can't possibly affect windows builds. And the build failure does not look to be
caused by this change.

[Thiemo Nagel, 2014-11-24 17:17:23]

Sorry for the overzealous revert. :(

[boliu, 2014-11-24 17:18:33]

On 2014/11/24 17:17:23, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
> Sorry for the overzealous revert. :(

Blame the flaky compile? :)

[Thiemo Nagel, 2014-11-24 17:49:38]

> Blame the flaky compile? :)

No no, I'm to blame.  I should have looked more carefully.  Sorry again.