Fix for esp32c6

[ptxmac]

Description

A minor fix so esp-idf-cxx can compile correctly for esp32c6 (and maybe other?)

i2c_cxx incorrectly assumed that I2C_NUM_1 would exist if SOC_I2C_NUM >= 2. But that's not the case when the device has 1 HP i2c and 1 LP i2c.

This changes i2c_cxx to look at only the HP SOC_HP_I2C_NUM instead

Testing

My own code compiles now 😄

---

Checklist

Before submitting a Pull Request, please ensure the following:

• [x] 🚨 This PR does not introduce breaking changes.
• [ ] All CI checks (GH Actions) pass.
• [x] Documentation is updated as needed.
• [x] Tests are updated or added as necessary.
• [x] Code is well-commented, especially in complex areas.
• [x] Git history is clean — commits are squashed to the minimum necessary.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[ptxmac]

Tests fails for unrelated reasons

[AnatoliiShablov]

https://github.com/espressif/esp-idf/issues/14291 I think same issue by the way. Can you rerun tests?

[ptxmac]

Can you rerun tests?

I don't think I have permissions to do that

[St0fF-NPL-ToM]

This will not fix the issue! Please see my proposed request: oops - removing the fork obviously closes a pull request.

I'm sorry. At least this should be rejected as the logic is not OK at all!

SOC_I2C_NUM is the total of I2C devices of the CPU. It's the sum of SOC_HP_I2C_NUM and SOC_LP_I2C_NUM. The problem arises from that respective check not accounting for this fact.

#if SOC_I2C_NUM >= 2
    /* fix issue #38 "Build fails on ESP32-C6 due to missing I2C_NUM_1 in i2c_cxx.cpp".     **
     * This fix only adresses the problem at hand in case of the C6, where SOC_I2C_NUM == 2 **
     * and we have "I2C_NUM_0" as well as "LP_I2C_NUM_0" defined, but no "I2C_NUM_1".       */
#	if SOC_LP_I2C_SUPPORTED && SOC_I2C_NUM == 2
		static_assert( (LP_I2C_NUM_0 == 1), "LP_I2C_NUM_0 must be equal to 1, as I2C_NUM_0 already is equal to 0");
#	else
		static_assert( (I2C_NUM_1 == 1), "I2C_NUM_1 must be equal to 1");
#	endif
#endif // SOC_I2C_NUM >= 2

Even this could logically be not completely correct. Please review.