refactor(rmt): refactored RMT loopback example

[SuGlider]

Description of Change

The way RMT loopback example was done, it had a sync problem that caused the result to do not match.
Low level signal was sent first and then the high level, therefore, it would only detect the second signal (high) after a delay in nanoseconds. This delay would cause the received signal to be shifted by one RMT symbol.

Output of the original example:

Got 30 RMT symbols
000e8001=8001000e 000d8001=8002000d 000b8002=8003000c 000a8004=8004000b 
00098005=8005000a 00088006=80060009 00078007=80070008 00068008=80080007 

With this refactoring/fix, RMT symbols start with High Level and the output matches the received RMT symbols.
This PR makes the example easier for understanding as well as the RMT symbol will better match.

Got 32 RMT symbols
0001800e=0001800e 0002800d=0002800d 0003800c=0003800c 0004800b=0004800b 
0005800a=0005800a 00068009=00068009 00078008=00078008 00088007=00088007 

Tests scenarios

Tested with ESP32, ESP32-C3 and ESP32-S3 using the provided example.

Related links

Related to #11200

[github-actions]

	Messages
📖	🎉 Good Job! All checks are passing!

👋 Hello SuGlider, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

📘 Please review the project's Contributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

---

🖊️ Please also make sure you have read and signed the Contributor License Agreement for 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.
- 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 940ecfb

[Copilot]

Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request.

Files not reviewed (1)

• libraries/ESP32/examples/RMT/RMTLoopback/RMTLoopback.ino: Language not supported

[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	⚠️ +558	0.00	⚠️ +0.16	0	0	0.00	0.00
ESP32S3	0	⚠️ +436	0.00	⚠️ +0.13	0	0	0.00	0.00
ESP32S2	0	⚠️ +360	0.00	⚠️ +0.13	0	0	0.00	0.00
ESP32C3	0	⚠️ +536	0.00	⚠️ +0.18	0	0	0.00	0.00
ESP32C6	0	⚠️ +556	0.00	⚠️ +0.21	0	0	0.00	0.00
ESP32H2	0	⚠️ +586	0.00	⚠️ +0.19	0	0	0.00	0.00
ESP32	0	⚠️ +380	0.00	⚠️ +0.12	0	0	0.00	0.00

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

Target	ESP32P4		ESP32S3		ESP32S2		ESP32C3		ESP32C6		ESP32H2		ESP32
Example	FLASH	RAM	FLASH	RAM	FLASH	RAM	FLASH	RAM	FLASH	RAM	FLASH	RAM	FLASH	RAM
libraries/ESP32/examples/RMT/RMTLoopback	⚠️ +558	0	⚠️ +436	0	⚠️ +360	0	⚠️ +536	0	⚠️ +556	0	⚠️ +586	0	⚠️ +380	0

[lucasssvaz]

LGTM