SPI - Allow detaching of some SPI pins without stopping SPI

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

Description of Change

This PR adds a feature to allow detach of SS, MISO or MOSI without stopping the SPI.
This PR fixes issue, when spiStopBus() was called twice (by SPI.end and spiDetachBus), printing an error.

Also removed pin parameter from detaching functions, as the pins are now stored in the SPI structure.
Without this change, peripheral manager was able to set to INIT pin, which was already detached from SPI.

Tests scenarios

Tested on esp32-c3.

Related links

Closes #9036
Closes #9066

[github-actions]

	Warnings
⚠️	Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "feature(spi): Allow detach of some SPI pins": type/action should be one of [change, ci, docs, feat, fix, refactor, remove, revert, test] the commit message "remove lock from spiAttackMISO": summary looks empty type/action looks empty 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).
⚠️	Please consider squashing your 7 commits (simplifying branch history).

👋 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 5385a50

[me-no-dev]

tested on all chips with DC = MISO