Adopted erase_size config changes in block devices and test runners

This ended up needing a bit of API rework since littlefs no longer needs
to know the actual erase_count. We can no longer rely on lfs_config to
contain all the information necessary to configure the block devices.

Changing the lfs_bd_config structs to be required is probably a good
idea anyways as it moves us more towards separating the bds from
littlefs, though we can't quite get rid of the lfs_config parameter
because of the block-device API in lfs_config. Eventually it would be
nice to get rid of it, but that would require API breakage.

tests/test_alloc.toml

@@ -460,8 +460,8 @@ code = '''
 
 # chained dir exhaustion test
 [cases.test_alloc_chained_dir_exhaustion]
-if = 'BLOCK_SIZE == 512'
-defines.BLOCK_COUNT = 1024
+if = 'ERASE_SIZE == 512'
+defines.ERASE_COUNT = 1024
 code = '''
     lfs_t lfs;
     lfs_format(&lfs, cfg) => 0;
@@ -538,8 +538,8 @@ code = '''
 
 # split dir test
 [cases.test_alloc_split_dir]
-if = 'BLOCK_SIZE == 512'
-defines.BLOCK_COUNT = 1024
+if = 'ERASE_SIZE == 512'
+defines.ERASE_COUNT = 1024
 code = '''
     lfs_t lfs;
     lfs_format(&lfs, cfg) => 0;
@@ -587,8 +587,8 @@ code = '''
 
 # outdated lookahead test
 [cases.test_alloc_outdated_lookahead]
-if = 'BLOCK_SIZE == 512'
-defines.BLOCK_COUNT = 1024
+if = 'ERASE_SIZE == 512'
+defines.ERASE_COUNT = 1024
 code = '''
     lfs_t lfs;
     lfs_format(&lfs, cfg) => 0;
@@ -655,8 +655,8 @@ code = '''
 
 # outdated lookahead and split dir test
 [cases.test_alloc_outdated_lookahead_split_dir]
-if = 'BLOCK_SIZE == 512'
-defines.BLOCK_COUNT = 1024
+if = 'ERASE_SIZE == 512'
+defines.ERASE_COUNT = 1024
 code = '''
     lfs_t lfs;
     lfs_format(&lfs, cfg) => 0;