Inconsistent use of `furi::time::Duration` and `core::time::Duration`

[dcoles]

Currently we have some APIs that use core::time::Duration (e.g. flipperzero::furi::thread::sleep) and some that use flipperzero::furi::time::Duration (e.g. flipperzero::gpio::i2c). This isn't great since it leads to a rather confusing situation where you have two incompatible Duration implementations in scope.

My understanding that the main reason that flipperzero::furi::time exists is that there is no Instant implementation in core::time and to better align with the kernel's tick resolution.

A quick comparison:

	core::time::Duration	flipperzero::furi::time::Duration	flipperzero::furi::time::Instant
Representation	{ secs: u64, nanos: u32 }	{ ticks: u32 }	{ ticks: u32 }
Size	12 bytes	4 bytes	4 bytes
Limits	~5.8¹¹ years	~49.7 days[^1]	± ~24.9 days[^1]
Resolution	1 ns	1 ms[^1]	1 ms[^1]

Consumers:

Function	Limits	Resolution
furi_delay_us(u32)	~1.2 hours	1 μs
furi_delay_ms(u32)	~49.7 days	1 ms
furi_delay_tick(u32)	~49.7 days[^1]	1 ms[^1]
furi_hal_i2c_tx(..., u32)	~49.7 days	1 ms

[^1]: Assuming the default configTICK_RATE_HZ_RAW = 1000

[dcoles]

Having a Furi specific Duration/Instant type that works on ticks seems to be quite useful, especially for some of the more low-level APIs. I wonder if we want to rename these FuriDuration and FuriInstant and provide conversion functions (e.g. FuriDuration::try_from(Duration)).