made fix to the ESP32 I2S simple tone example

[greenyleaf]

Fixed a problem in the I2S tone example.

---

Description of Change

Did some fix so that the tone example could play normally on ESP32 board with I2S decoder attached.

Tests scenarios

Tested the Pull Request on Arduino-esp32 core v3.1.0 with ESP32 and ESP32-S3 Board with this scenario.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "edit the I2S - simple tone example": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "edit the I2S - simple tone example": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "made some fix to the ESP32 I2S simple tone example": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "some edit": 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 10 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).

👋 Hello greenyleaf, 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.
- 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 75c3c75

[greenyleaf]

How to accomplish the requirement of the 'Test needed' tag?

[me-no-dev]

@greenyleaf we will test it and comment. No worries