My house has all of the GFCI outlets (approx 7 outlets/ 2 bathrooms, kitchen, and shed) running to a single GFCI breaker. Is this a proper setup for GFCI? I'm looking for a solution to keep the breaker from tripping when several devices are pulling power at once.
You should not put a GFCI outlet on a GCFI breaker. You need GFCI protection in only one device per circuit. Or stated better, you should not have a GFCI outlet downstream of a GFCI breaker. It's not unsafe per se, but it will be an unpredictable pain to deal with when it trips and you don't know where to go to reset it.
GFCI Outlets do not require GFCI breakers. GFCI Breakers make regular outlets and other devices GFCI protected.
Stacking GFCI protection does nothing.
Feeding a GFCI device from a GFCI device is utterly redundant. It does nothing for safety and adds a lot more stuff that can go wrong.
An exception: if your main/upstream GFCI device has a much higher threshold than the downstream device. That would apply to Europeans, who commonly have a whole-house GFCI (they call it an RCD) with a fairly high threshold so that trips are infrequent. This also means places that need max protection like bathrooms are underprotected. Then yes, you want a better GFCI for that circuit.
And by the way Euros, the trouble with whole-house GFCI protection is it means any ground fault will trip your refrigerator and furnace circuit, with potentially serious consequences, especially if the person who resets the breaker does not mention this to the cook.
It's actually worse than nothing.
7 GFCI's on a GFCI breaker means 7 other circuits are NOT protected that could be.
What's more, when a fault occurs, every GFCI upstream of the fault trips. When users get sick of hunting them all down, this will cause a door to start binding due to the extension cord running under it and stapled along the baseboard to serve that location from an unprotected circuit.
Legal or code violation?
This is arguable, but I argue codevio for two reasons: first, resets are supposed to be readily accessible, and not made any more complicated than practicality requires. Second, work must be neat and workmanlike.
Stacking GFCI is the least of your concerns.
The first issue here is that code requires that some of the things that are on this single circuit are required to be on separate circuits. The receptacles for the bathrooms should be on a separate circuit. The kitchen small appliance circuits should be separate.
The second is that that circuit is just plain overloaded - run the toaster and a hair dryer at the same time, it will likely trip.
Correcting this could be quite a bit of work, depending on how the wiring was done. If they're all wired as separate circuits but combined at or near the panel, it might be easy.
Stacking GFCI protection is not wrong, and you could argue it's very right.
But to the original question, I will respectfully submit a dissenting opinion on stacking GFCI protection - protecting at both the panel and the receptacle.
I can't see a code violation on the basis of accessibility; if that was the case, GFCI breakers wouldn't satisfy the code at all, but of course they do.
On the basis of "neat and workmanlike" - that very vague requirement is the "disorderly conduct" of electrical violations, and as such almost impossible to defend. But vague as it is, it's usually reserved for sloppy work, not design issues.
Using a GFCI breaker and GFCI receptacle on the same circuit is like wearing a belt and suspenders. It is, of course, by definition, redundant; but redundancy can be a good thing, especially with safety devices.
If one GFCI device fails to operate, the other can still prevent a shock. I have seen more failed GFCI devices recently than I have in the past, including failure to trip.
It may be more trouble to reset, because you have to check two places, and you may check the one that didn't trip first. But it may be well worth the trouble. Keep in mind that GFCI trip might be saving someone's life.
I agree that it would be nice if they could be coordinated at personnel safety levels. In theory you could make 4ma trip GFCI receptacles and 6ma trip GFCI breakers, so the more readily accessible receptacle would normally trip first. In reality, getting that kind of coordination from GFCI devices is probably not practical.
In particular, I think redundant ground fault protection may prevent some of the electrical accidents involving swimming pools we see every summer.
It might also be wise to put a label at the GFCI receptacle that indicates that the circuit is GFCI protected at the breaker as well, so the end user knows there's another place to check.