fix(SDMMC): Remove need for BOARD_HAS_SDMMC for esp32

[P-R-O-C-H-Y]

Description of Change

This PR removed unnecessary check for define BOARD_HAS_SDMMC, which is causing that SDMMC can't be used if a board variant don't have this defined. No other SoC is affected by this PR.

Tests scenarios

Tested with SDMMC example on ESP32-Wrover-kit

Related links

Close #10709

[github-actions]

	Warnings
⚠️	Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "fix(SDMMC): Remove need for BOARD_HAS_SDMMC for esp32": scope/component should be lowercase without whitespace, allowed special characters are _ / . , * - . Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips: follow Conventional Commits style correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers) TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).
⚠️	The **target branch** for this Pull Request **must be the default branch** of the project (`master`). If you would like to add this feature to a different branch, please state this in the PR description and we will consider it.

👋 Hello P-R-O-C-H-Y, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 7c95911

[github-actions]

Memory usage test (comparing PR against master branch)

The table below shows the summary of memory usage change (decrease - increase) in bytes and percentage for each target.

Memory	FLASH [bytes]		FLASH [%]		RAM [bytes]		RAM [%]
Target	DEC	INC	DEC	INC	DEC	INC	DEC	INC
ESP32P4	0	0	0.00	0.00	0	0	0.00	0.00
ESP32S3	0	‼️ +24K	0.00	‼️ +6.46	0	‼️ +8K	0.00	‼️ +27.15
ESP32	0	‼️ +19K	0.00	‼️ +5.09	0	⚠️ +1756	0.00	‼️ +4.61

Click to expand the detailed deltas report [usage change in BYTES]

Target	ESP32P4		ESP32S3		ESP32
Example	FLASH	RAM	FLASH	RAM	FLASH	RAM
SD_MMC/examples/SD2USBMSC	-	-	‼️ +24K	‼️ +8K	-	-
SD_MMC/examples/SDMMC_Test	-	-	‼️ +22K	‼️ +2K	‼️ +18K	⚠️ +988
SD_MMC/examples/SDMMC_time	-	-	‼️ +18K	‼️ +3K	‼️ +19K	⚠️ +1756

[github-actions]

Test Results

 61 files   61 suites   5m 33s ⏱️
 21 tests  21 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
144 runs  144 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 7c95911.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.