Removed all instances of PcdAdvancedLoggerPeiInRam

[Raymond-MS]

Description

The PCD PcdAdvancedLoggerPeiInRam does not work and is being removed. For Intel systems, the PEI phase uses cache-as-ram and determines that there is no way to allocate memory. This PCD was supposed to signal to the logger that it could allocate memory, however, it would error as memory allocation was not allowed in that phase.

• [ ] Impacts functionality?
  • Functionality - Does the change ultimately impact how firmware functions?
  • Examples: Add a new library, publish a new PPI, update an algorithm, ...
• [ ] Impacts security?
  • Security - Does the change have a direct security impact on an application, flow, or firmware?
  • Examples: Crypto algorithm change, buffer overflow fix, parameter validation improvement, ...
• [ ] Breaking change?
  • Breaking change - Will anyone consuming this change experience a break in build or boot behavior?
  • Examples: Add a new library class, move a module to a different repo, call a function in a new library class in a pre-existing module, ...
• [ ] Includes tests?
  • Tests - Does the change include any explicit test code?
  • Examples: Unit tests, integration tests, robot tests, ...
• [ ] Includes documentation?
  • Documentation - Does the change contain explicit documentation additions outside direct code modifications (and comments)?
  • Examples: Update readme file, add feature readme file, link to documentation on an a separate Web page, ...

How This Was Tested

Ran the CI build for all packages in mu_plus for the X64 architecture. All tests passing.

Integration Instructions

N/A

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 11.02%. Comparing base (f0c8e10) to head (d9d7329).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## release/202311 #536 +/- ## =============================================== Coverage 11.01% 11.02% =============================================== Files 144 144 Lines 22079 22065 -14 Branches 2356 2356 =============================================== Hits 2432 2432 + Misses 19615 19601 -14 Partials 32 32 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/microsoft/mu_plus/pull/536/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=microsoft) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [AdvLoggerPkg](https://app.codecov.io/gh/microsoft/mu_plus/pull/536/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=microsoft) | `3.60% <ø> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=microsoft#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[makubacki]

I noticed you created the PR from the release/202311 branch on your fork. That's okay, but You might want to use separate branches for each change to keep you tracking branch to the upstream clean. That makes it easier to sync it in the future. Up to your preferred workflow in the end.