Consistency check of MATRIX size against the number of defined pins

[elfmimi]

Description

This is the refined version of the consistency check patch which was included in #8160 .

It properly handles those keyboards doing things a bit off track.

• keyboards/ai03/voyager60_alps

  MATRIX_COLS and MATRIX_COL_PINS contradicts. but it will be handled safely.

• keyboards/choco60/rev2

  number of COL pins differ between left side and right side. but it will be handled safely.

Following is the only one which needs treatment.

• keyboards/for_science

  need SPLIT_KEYBOARD = yes

I've checked this is not increasing binary size for any of the keyboards except choco60/rev2 .

Types of Changes

• Core
• Bugfix
• New feature
• Enhancement/optimization
• Keyboard (addition or update)
• Keymap/layout/userspace (addition or update)
• Documentation

Checklist

• My code follows the code style of this project: C, Python
• I have read the PR Checklist document and have made the appropriate changes.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• I have tested the changes and verified that they work and don't break anything (as well as I can manage).

[stale]

Thank you for your contribution!
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 45 days. It will be closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. Please feel free to give a status update now, or re-open when it's ready.
For maintainers: Please label with awaiting review, breaking_change, in progress, or on hold to prevent the issue from being re-flagged.

[drashna]

Shouldn't this also be a const?

[stale]

Thank you for your contribution!
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 45 days. It will be closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. Please feel free to give a status update now, or re-open when it's ready.
For maintainers: Please label with awaiting review, breaking_change, in progress, or on hold to prevent the issue from being re-flagged.

[drashna]

Could you retarget this to develop, and rebase?

There are some changes in develop that will have conflicts with this change, though.

[stale]

Thank you for your contribution!
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 45 days. It will be closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. Please feel free to give a status update now, or re-open when it's ready.
For maintainers: Please label with awaiting review, breaking_change, in progress, or on hold to prevent the issue from being re-flagged.

[stale]

Thank you for your contribution!
This pull request has been automatically closed because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. Please feel free to give a status update now, ping for review, or re-open when it's ready.