Refactor to use common routines/macros to handle bit manipulation.

[crankyoldgit]

• Add setBit(), setBits() methods to simplify & standardise bit manipulation.
  o Unit tests for above.

• Add macros for GETBIT8() -> GETBIT64() & GETBITS8() -> GETBITS64()for standardising bit retrieval.
  o Macro used instead of a function as the overhead was too expensive. i.e. program space got bigger in most cases.

• Improved bit handling for some protocols.
  o Changes the library values of some settings in a few protocols.
  o This required some minor changes to Unit Tests to match new values.

• Refactor all the A/C protocols to use the above.
  o Above routines covered 99+% of use cases.

• Passes all the existing unit tests without modification (see above for exceptions) so this is pretty much safe and should not affect functionality.

• Fixes a number of potential issues where poor bit-wise math was used previously.

• Program size remains roughly the same.
  o Some gains and some losses. Overall it's worth it.

• Code style/formatting changes & improvements.

Note to reviewers:

• Sorry this is a massive code review. It's mostly mechanical. It took almost a week to write. Take solace in the fact the the unit test coverage works as expected. It saved me more times than I can easily count when writing this.

[NiKiZe]

Are all masks changed, or just specific ones?
I find the the new way of using offsets much harder to understand compared to using masks - this might lead to it being harder for others to understand the code, and contribute. - I do clearly see the benefits in other places.
It might however be better to have functions that works with mask directly, instead of introducing offsets.

[crankyoldgit]

Almost all masks have been changed. The exceptions at this stage are masks like 0b00100100 where the mask isn't contiguous.
Personally, I preferred simple bit masks. but a lot of people had trouble understanding them. When refactoring the code, I found a few examples of either poor masks that I had done, or ones that were wrong.
I often get them wrong when writing the code but people don't see that as I write unit tests to make sure things behave the way I expect, not the way I've initially written the code. :-)

You can still use the old ways of doing it.
I'll probably add some routines to allow arbitrary masks to this PR.