esp-wifi: Late enable BT interrupts

[bjoernQ]

Thank you for your contribution!

We appreciate the time and effort you've put into this pull request.
To help us review it efficiently, please ensure you've gone through the following checklist:

Submission Checklist 📝

• I have updated existing examples or added new ones (if applicable).
• I have used cargo xtask fmt-packages command to ensure that all changed code is formatted correctly.
• My changes were added to the CHANGELOG.md in the proper section.
• I have added necessary changes to user code to the Migration Guide.
• My changes are in accordance to the esp-rs API guidelines

Extra:

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md guide and followed its instructions.

Pull Request Details 📖

Description

Fixes #2883

For whatever reason when using Serial-JTAG it triggered a BT interrupt which made the interrupt fire before we had a callback which handled it correctly.

Additionally using the published edge-* crates now - DHCP is working again in the example.

skip-changelog because of the change Cargo.toml in examples

Testing

Manual testing of the examples

[bugadani]

I guess this is fine, but instead of moving the implementation, wouldn't moving the call to setup_radio_isr work? Right now we have a setup_radio_isr that isn't actually setting up radio ISRs, but for some MCUs unsets some ISRs and it's just not something that inspires happiness in me.

[bjoernQ]

I guess this is fine, but instead of moving the implementation, wouldn't moving the call to setup_radio_isr work? Right now we have a setup_radio_isr that isn't actually setting up radio ISRs, but for some MCUs unsets some ISRs and it's just not something that inspires happiness in me.

I created #2982 to address this and more

[MabezDev]

I don't want to block this PR, but I'm just a bit concerned as we have made some changes around this area before. I'd feel a bit better if the flow of execution was a bit more clear, as it stands right now I'm unsure where/when certain interrupts are enabled within the init process. I think we can make it a bit clearer, but I don't have ideas of the top of my head for now.

I'll approve this as is, but if you have any ideas to make it clearer feel free to implement, or maybe make an issue so we can come back to it later.

[bjoernQ]

I don't want to block this PR, but I'm just a bit concerned as we have made some changes around this area before. I'd feel a bit better if the flow of execution was a bit more clear, as it stands right now I'm unsure where/when certain interrupts are enabled within the init process. I think we can make it a bit clearer, but I don't have ideas of the top of my head for now.

I'll approve this as is, but if you have any ideas to make it clearer feel free to implement, or maybe make an issue so we can come back to it later.

Maybe we can expand on this in #2982 - I'd like this bug to be fixed in the first place asap